Assembly Committee on Budget (First Extraordinary Session)

SB1 provides additional funding authority to the Department of Justice to reimburse costs associated with litigation involving unlawful or unconstitutional actions by the Federal Government. SB2 supplements existing funding for legal service providers by 25 million in the current year.

For today's hearing, Erica Lee at the Department of Finance will present both bills, and Christian Griffith and Committee Staff from the Assembly Budget Committee are also available for any questions. After our presentation, we will turn to Member questions and comments and then open for public comment.

But before we begin, I'm going to turn it over to our Vice Chair, Mr. Flora.

All right, with that, we will invite. Well, actually, let's take a moment to call roll and establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, if you'd like to call the roll it.

[Roll Call]

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

Good afternoon, Chair Gabriel, Vice Chair Flora, and Members of the Committee. Erica Lee with the Department of Finance. Here to present during the special session hearing. On November 7, Governor Newsom convened a special session of the Legislature to bolster California's legal resources pending the incoming federal Administration and threats to Californians' rights and California's laws.

The Governor further expanded the special session on January 13th, in response to the devastating fires in Los Angeles. Last Wednesday, we presented on two bills that contained over 2.5 billion for immediate response and recovery activities in Los Angeles. On Thursday, the Assembly and Senate passed both bills and the Governor immediately signed those bills into law.

And the first of those dollars were allocated to state departments the very next day on Friday. Today I will present on the remaining two bills which augment legal aid funds and state legal resources to position California to defend against unlawful federal actions that could jeopardize resources and immeasurable rights and protections for Californians.

The first Bill is SBX11. This Bill establishes a mechanism to provide up to 25 million general fund to state entities, including the Department of Justice for increased litigation costs with the Federal Government during this current fiscal year.

It also requires the Department of Justice to report annually on or before August 1st through 2028 to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee on Administrative Actions and Use of Outside Counsel. It also requires the Department of Justice to maintain an Internet website detailing litigation against the Federal Government. Moving on to the next Bill, SBX12.

This Bill provides 25 million in general fund for civil legal assistance for Californians. Specifically, it includes 10 million to the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission to distribute grants to legal services nonprofits throughout the state for civil legal assistance.

It also includes 10 million to the Department of Social Services for grants to qualify nonprofit organizations, including immigration legal services providers throughout the state to provide immigration-related services.

And lastly, it includes 5 million to the California Access to Justice Commission to augment existing grant funding to legal services nonprofits to protect access to justice in civil legal matters. And with that, I'm joined by colleagues to respond to any questions of the Committee.

Thank you very much with that presentation. We will now bring it back to Members of the Committee for questions or comments. Start with our Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues, and good to see all of you again for another hearing and just have a couple questions. And most of my questions, really all of my questions are related to SBX1-2.

And I am just curious, in the Governor's proclamation, where does it state that or where do we find that we can talk about risk of eviction, wage theft, and intimate partner violence? Where is that found in the proclamation? Can you connect those dots for me?

I would just say broadly speaking, when viewing the proclamation, there is a provision to provide additional funds to the California Department of Justice or other agencies, departments, and boards to support the ability to immediately file affirmative litigation challenging actions taken by the incoming federal administrations very broadly, which can include many different things.

Specifically, we're concerned about federal overreach and the protecting the rights and protections of Californians, which could include those things.

So under wage theft, we have the Department of Labor, which you can go through if you have an issue, as well as PAGA Attorney, right? So I'm just curious, under wage theft, what part of this proclamation, what are we talking about when it says wage theft, what are we going after there?

Again, I think it's just pending potential overreach of the Federal Government, which could be broad.

Okay, so not 100% sure what we're going after then. Just broad, just more money.

The Bill provides funding for legal aid assistance, which could include many different things. And I think not knowing necessarily what the Federal Government intends to do, these funds are provided in those instances.

Okay. And then going on to intimate partner violence. Do you know what that definition is?

I don't know that offhand. No.

Okay, that's interesting and concerning.

I'll just point out that in the Bill, it says "at risk of" and then names those things and then goes on to say, "and other actions that put their safety risks as a result of potential or actual federal actions." So these are describing things that could happen as a result of federal actions. And that's the context in which that appears in the Bill.

No, I understand that. There's just some very particular words. In SBX1-1, it talks about just broad things that we want to protect ourselves against. Right? In SBX1-2, these are very particular risk of eviction, wage theft, and intimate partner violence. Like, these are things that are stated. So I'm just curious, like, what those definitions are.

Because, I mean, intimate partner violence could mean domestic violence, right? Well, domestic violence is a serious felony. It's not a violent felony. And over the years, we've tried to address some of these issues. So I'm just curious what in this proclamation what the definition of intimate partner violence is.

And I think it's concerning that we don't actually know what that is. I would also say that currently, I'm sure you're familiar with the Litigation Deposit Fund, right? Currently, that fund has roughly, you know, $142 million in it. And that's after, in 2023, they gave a $400 million loan to the general fund.

So I guess if we have $142 million in a litigation fund that the Attorney General already has access to, why do we need another $50 million through an extraordinary session when we have so many other priorities that are facing the state?

Assemblymember, this is Jennifer Kim with the Assembly Budget Committee. Some of the items that are listed in that section are purposes that currently can be used under the Equal Access Fund.

So the legal aid organizations that receive this funding for the last 26 years, these are some of the ways in which they help indigent individuals in civil matters. So these are not new uses for that fund.

What do you mean? The eviction wage theft and intimate.

Yes.

Those are not. So those organizations should have a definition then, right?

So intimate partner violence includes domestic violence?

It does?

Yes.

And is it my understanding that this proclamation only pertains to immigration? Right? Migrant workers?

Not necessarily. The language refers to federal actions that are either actual or potential. So these can include LGBTQ individuals and other indigent folks that may be targeted by federal actions.

Okay, thank you. So, just curious, and maybe from your perspective, then if we have $142 million in that fund already, what is the need for another 50 million in an extraordinary session?

So the Equal Access Fund is a separate fund that's administered through the state bar, and it goes to nonprofit organizations in the state. The Litigation Deposit Fund that you're referencing is used by the Department of Justice in their litigation.

So they could not use those funds to go after what we're trying to address here.

The Department of Justice is able to use those funds for the listed statutory kind of purposes, but this is a separate fund altogether, that again, has been in place since 1999 that has served legal defense services for indigent individuals.

And this. What's the name of the fund that this is going into? I'm sorry?

The Equal Access Fund.

Thank you so much. Appreciate that. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. Any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee. Mr. Essayli?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate the opportunity to get some clarity on what exactly we're trying to accomplish here. So these bills are prospective looking, right? You don't have a specific lawsuit in mind as we speak? You're anticipating bringing certain lawsuits, is that my understanding? Correct?

Yes, that is correct.

Okay. What are you most concerned about?

What do you think the Trump Administration is going to do that you're so worried about that you got to rush into court?

I think that there have been a lot of, there's been a lot of messaging coming from the Administration at the federal level, and I couldn't tell you the number of places that might impact California. I think this is again, perspective, thinking about the things that could occur over the next several months.

And this is why this is a special session request. It's in the current year for immediate access to those funds. Should we, not just the Department of Justice, but any state entity, need access to those dollars?

Yes, and the Governor has expanded the purpose of the special session include the wildfire relief. And Governor was meeting with the President on Friday. He met with him on the tarmac and tried to secure federal aid.

And my understanding is the tone was to try to work in a collaborative matter, in a collaborative sense with the President and the Federal Government to get as much aid as we can for the State of California.

So my question is, does the governor's office still think this is the right time to bring these bills and to threaten litigation against the Trump Administration when at the same time we're looking for aid from the federal government to help with the recovery effort and to help of California?

I understand the question, and I think we continue to. I would not say that there are any threats on the table. This is perspective. Should there be concerns that we have of, again, federal overreach, federal decisions that impact California or Californians? And in terms of tone, this is.

Again, these were bills were presented as something that is prospective, and you asked if there was anything in particular. I think this is, again, just putting California in a position where we can readily respond if necessary.

Is the position of the governor's office, without these bills, you're not able to respond right now to actions of the Federal Government?

To some extent, departments have some ability to absorb costs, but should there be additional need for funding? Again, this is the mechanism by which we want to secure those funds.

But you are able to respond right now without these funds?

Again, there is limited amounts of dollars in our department budgets to do something above and beyond what they are currently tasked to do.

How much money do you have right now to bring lawsuits to defend against the Federal Government?

I would point to a base number of 2.5 million that the Department of Justice has currently. But that is, again, not necessarily in response to forthcoming litigation. It is part of their base budget. And I would turn to my colleagues for anything specific, but that is the base budget that the Department of Justice has currently.

Okay, I'd like to know more about the 2.5 million, because when I look at the budget of the Department of Justice, it's $690 million for the Division of Legal Servies. How do you get this $2.5 million figure?

Amy Jarvis, Department of Finance. So that budget started in 26, the 2017 Budget Act. It was about 6.5 million to start, and it has gone down over the years. And so now their base budget is two and a half million specifically to defend California against federal action. So it's a very specific amount for that purpose.

Didn't the. I mean, they bring lawsuits all the time. I've never heard that there's a shortage of money to bring lawsuits. So is that by statute that they're limited to this 2.5 million, or is that just within the Department of Justice's own agency? They've only allocated 2.5 million for that purpose.

They have some flexibility, but the Legislature actually acted to appropriate these specific funds for that purpose.

Okay, so the position right now is that the Department of Justice only has $2.5 million for the purposes of defending itself against federal action. Is that correct?

That's how much is specifically appropriated for that purpose. Now, to the extent that they choose to redirect existing resources, they have the ability to do that, to the extent they have flexibility.

Okay, so there's lots of other money available to the Attorney General other than the specific fund you're referring to, correct?

Well, I think it depends on the fund source. I think you mentioned earlier was mentioned the Litigation Deposit Fund.

Those funds are kind of a stopping point and get distributed to the special funds where the funds, the lawsuits and the income, for lack of a better term, gets transferred to the individual special funds where those funds are most appropriately placed. So it's sort of a stopping point.

So their general fund is where these resources, anything to defend California would come from, generally speaking.

Okay. Ms. Lee, one of the concerns that was raised by the Governor was that the enforcement of immigration laws in the State of California. Is that one of the areas of concern for the Administration?

Yes, it is.

And specifically, can you articulate what specific enforcement activities of our immigration laws that you're most concerned about?

I cannot give you a list at this point. And I think that there is concern that, again, that some of the decisions that this Legislature and that this Administration have made in regards to protections of all Californians might be imposed upon by the Federal Government, just very broadly. And again, this is prospective.

It is not looking at a particular thing. But I think that there has been rhetoric that has come out that is concerning in regards to immigration in California.

Now, the Biden Department, the Biden Administration conducted several enforcement actions regarding immigration in the State of California. Are you aware that that has been happening for the last four years?

I am not aware of any specifics.

Okay, let me just ask. Are you aware that just this month in the Central Valley, you have Fresno, Kern County, and in Half Moon Bay, there was 78 arrests of undocumented immigrants and there was a three-day enforcement operation conducted earlier this month? Were you aware of that?

Again, I'm not aware of all the particulars that are happening in that front.

And the Department and the Governor didn't see a need to sue the Biden Administration over those, correct?

I'm not sure in regards to what the Department of Justice has done in that circumstance.

Okay, just a couple last questions. On this fund, the grants that are going to go to these nonprofit groups, what sort of activities do you anticipate they're going to do with these grants? What are they going to do with the money?

They support indigent individuals in obtaining legal aid and assistance to figure out sort of next steps and approach to protect their safety and security in the state.

Would they defend? Use our tax dollars to defend illegal immigrants from deportation proceedings? Is that part of what they do?

Well, I'm not certain about that. I would have to defer, probably.

Does someone here know?

If the deportation hearing is under a criminal justice jurisdiction. The Equal Access Fund is for civil matters. And so, as I told the Vice Chair earlier, this fund has been in existence since 1999, and it supports indigent individuals filling out paperwork, giving advice on tendency issues, on whole slew of issues. So again, on the civil side of matters.

Okay, so what is the point of having it in this special session? I mean, why don't we just take that up in regular session? Why is it being tied to Trump proofing the State of California? I guess I'm not understanding the nexus.

Again, the resources that are provided for legal aid assistance are already being used. Each of these three programs are existing programs. They have base budgets. Those dollars are spoken for in regards to the local nonprofits that they're distributed to. These are additive dollars because they have seen additional need for them at the local level.

And you're assuring us that this money is not used to defend illegal immigrants from deportation proceedings?

Again, just to reiterate, these are for civil legal proceedings only.

Right. So, not deportation? Is deportation not a civil proceeding?

So my understanding is that if an individual is picked up, and in a circumstance, if they are being detained for possible deportation. In that situation, that person hasn't been determined to be illegally unable to be in the country. And so it does allow for legal support for those individuals to understand those proceedings.

But if you're referencing a situation of someone who's been convicted of a felony that warrants deportation, that's a different process. That's not what this funding is for.

So you're assuring us that none of this money will be used to defend criminal illegal immigrants facing deportation. You're going to assure me of that?

Assemblymember, as a budget staffer, I can only tell you what the grant is for. I don't know that I can give you that kind of, that level of a guarantee.

Does anyone who knows more? Maybe in the governor's staff.

I would say that there is language provided for each of those buckets of dollars for reporting in terms of who received those grants and for what they're used. And so there is some oversight that is the Legislature may provide on that.

Okay, I still dont have clarity.

But again, the intent is for civilization proceedings for which a lot of this is sort of assistance for paperwork, filling out forms, and such. Not specifically.

Okay, I don't have any further questions right now. I would just say, Mr. Chair, I think this is incredibly tone-deaf to be moving forward with these bills at this time when we have residents who still are not in their homes.

We're fighting not only fires now, but mudslides, and we should be focused on wildfire recovery, relief, and prevention. And I don't think this is a sign of good faith to, you know, reaching out to try to work with the President and the Federal Government to try to get aid that we desperately need.

I do think it's a bit insulting and rude to open a fund of $25 million for the purpose of Trump-proofing the State of California. So I would just say that we should, as a body, as a state, we should defer this. We should just lay this on the table.

And if and when there's a shortage of money that's impacting the Attorney General's ability to defend the State of California, at that time we can take appropriate action. But I just think this is the wrong message to be sending right now, and I hope you take that back to the Governor. So thank you.

Thank you. Wanna go? Assemblymember Bennett.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. During the first Trump Administration, did the State of California file a number of lawsuits trying to protect California from federal action?

Yes, I believe over 123 lawsuits were filed during that time.

And did we win many of those lawsuits?

I'm not sure what our scorecard is, but we did win several which brought back millions or prevented billions from being taken from the state.

That was my next question. Did we protect significant funding for California?

And I'm sorry, I just got some clarification that we won about two-thirds of those cases.

And in my community, we have had situations where there have been threats of action.

I'll just say this, it was over, we won over half of them.

Over half of them.

Thank you for that clarification. And we protected significant funding for the State of California with those lawsuits.

That's correct.

And once the community steps up and actually appropriates money for the potential lawsuits, we've oftentimes seen people back off because they know there is money appropriated for the lawsuit. Is that part of what we're doing here?

By making it clear that we have money appropriated for these lawsuits, it makes it clear that we are going to step forward. We don't have to wait and go through the legislative process because we have anticipated, we may have the same situation that we had in the first Administration. Is that correct?

I think, in part, that is correct. The first is really to provide that easy access to those funds should we need them. And another is a symbol that we here in California will defend our rights and protect Californians.

Which may cause people to alter some of the decisions they're making because they know that they will be challenged, particularly if there are things that are done that are obviously things that somebody would lose in a lawsuit. Thank you very much.

You done? Thank you very much, Assemblymember. We will now go to Assemblymember Hedwick.

Do you have a proposed timeline for the grants, what the, what the workload looks like, when it will be open, that kind of thing?

Hi.

Thank you for the question. Jennifer Kim, again with the Assembly Budget Committee. So for the Access to Justice Commission, they were provided with million in the 202425 budget. So that funding is, I believe it's supposed to go out in February. This I'm going to guess maybe within three months and maybe a Shorter time frame.

And I think part of the issue is that our regular budget timeline wouldn't get the funding out until the following year. And so this allows for a speedier kind of delivery of funds.

So we have five months left in the budget process. I don't understand. I feel like it's personally irresponsible to do this in the special session, especially when so many people are unhoused and dealing with the trauma of a fire that could cost $30 billion to $275 billion that we absolutely need President Trump's help on.

I've written a lot of state grants. Nothing happens fast in a state grant program. So five months seems like a very small window to wait and do this in the regular process. So that's why we have these processes.

Hi, this is Nicole Vasquez with the Assembly Budget Committee. For the Immigration Services funding program that's administered by the Department of Social Services, it's anticipated that it would be three months to put out the 10 million additional dollars to the 80, approximately 85 current grantees.

If those grantees don't have the capacity to put out that additional dollars, we've been informed by the Department that it could take six or more months to implement that additional infusion. Just to answer your question from the DSS side.

So after the regular budget would be approved, potentially.

And I would just add that having those the dollars flow now allows that that clock to begin now versus in July. So it would be three to six months starting when the Bill is signed now versus July 1st.

You could, you could have them apply with the pending budget. There's been grants that do that for local nonprofits in a smaller scale, of course. But the process could start with applications and then if needed, because this is an if. Right. We're then release the funds and do it in the regular budget session.

From what I understand the history is to base it on the allocation once it's actually approved and signed by the Governor.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember we will now go to Assemblymember Patterson.

Great. Thank you so much. I missed the very beginning, and I wanted to just go off some comments that were made by one of my colleagues a little bit ago, but do we have a budget during the last Trump Administration to sue him specifically or sue the Federal Government specifically?

At that time, we had an additional 6.5 million specific to the Department of Justice, and that didn't require a special session for that. In regards to time, I believe it was part of the regular budget process. Again, this is for more, more broadly, for state entities, not just the Department of Justice.

So I just want to point that out.

Okay. And there, since the State of California has announced already at least one lawsuit, or at least partnership with other states on at least one lawsuit. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.

And somehow we were able to accomplish that without additional funding.

Again, the Department of Justice has some funding that they are able to provide. They cannot sustain additional funding for further litigation. Should there be need for many, many lawsuits.

Is there anybody going to be making sure that none of this money is spent on press conferences to announce all this litigation?

Again, the purposes for the uses of these dollars will be listed on a website that the Department of Justice is required to, pursuant to this Bill to include on their webpage as well as the uses of those funds. So it will be transparent and again, allow the Legislature to provide oversight on the use of these dollars.

But if an attorney appears or a outside counsel appears in a press conference with the Attorney General, presumably that's a billable hour to some budget. And I would assume. I'm not sure what budget that would come out of. I just want to make sure that none of this money is used on a statewide press campaign.

So we mentioned on the civil side, and, you know, we're a sanctuary state.

And so I did have an opportunity to meet with the Border Patrol last year and made it clear how difficult it is to really apprehend people who have committed crimes in this country once they're let out of California prisons or as they're committing through the process.

But sometimes people who commit crimes in this country, you know, you're innocent until proven guilty, even if the crime seems clear. And so this. And some people have criminal records we may not know about, because we don't. We don't work with the Border Patrol. If they commit crimes in another country and then they came here, we.

We wouldn't know because we don't talk to them. So how. I'm just, I'm really unclear on how we Ensure that. Is there a way that Department of Finance is going to ensure that one of these nonprofits are not assisting people with criminal records?

They might not have active criminal records, but maybe they committed a crime elsewhere, but we're assisting them staying here in this country. Is there a way to prevent that from happening?

I would just say that, again, these are existing programs for the additional dollars to go through, and these are existing relationships that the Department of Social Services and DOJ have with local nonprofits. So this is not these. These entities are used to doing this type of work and working with the population that's being targeted at this point.

And in regards to the responsibilities that they have, again, this is something that they have been doing and they're not new to the game necessarily. And so I would just say that there are policies and processes in place in regards to how the Department of Finance would know that.

I think we would have to work with these, our entities, our state entities that are distributing those funds. But obviously that is not the intent of those dollars. It's not an intent of the program that. Are these three existing programs.

Well, hopefully they're not already assisting people with criminal records. And it sounds like to me they're. I'm not sure if there's a check of balance on that already or do we know. Do any of these nonprofits have some kind of check and balance to make sure they're not helping criminals stay in this country?

I would have to get back to you on the exact checks and balances that are required there. These contracts.

So the last year, and it did, we did. Fortunately, the Legislature rejected a ridiculous proposal by the Governor to cut hundreds of millions of dollars for preschool programs for kids with disabilities. And I don't recall that this budget is restoring that. So is it the governor's position to.

To spend $50 million on lawsuits and helping people here illegally? Is it his preference to Fund those programs rather than helping kids with disabilities?

I don't know if that's an either or. I would say that what the intent of these bills are to, again, protect California, Californians, California laws. And as was stated earlier, billions of dollars could potentially be on the line in regards to federal funding. And so that is the intent of these bills.

In this current budget proposal, the governor's proposed cutting $1.1 billion from various affordable housing programs. So. And also $500 million from student housing revolving loan program, $358 million in reductions to corrections, 746 million to various healthcare workforce programs. And I think you're right.

You know, you might say it's either or, but those are programs that are demonstrably being cut because we don't have enough money because you had to make the budget balance. But instead, we're prioritizing a special session, $50 million here for, to.

For these two programs and to sue the Trump Administration rather than funding those programs, which I think probably the Legislature, we probably think are more important. But maybe that's not the governor's position. Do we know how much, how many lawsuits the Attorney General can file for $25 million?

I think it would likely depend on the kind of lawsuits, but I would defer to my colleagues, so it would depend on the type of lawsuit.

And we spent last time 6. Do you say $6 million or. What was the number? $6 million.

There was 6.5 million that was allocated to the Department of Justice. Okay. And with 122 lawsuits, there was over 123 lawsuits.

We don't project 500 lawsuits against the Trump Administration, do we?

I think this is. That was over a period of time that was over the first four years. This is an amount six months, three months, five months. Well, this, the, the up to 25 million, again, is for statewide. So again, not just the Department of Justice and for. Or any need that should arise.

Okay, well, one last question I have is actually I helped people, I helped somebody who was in this country, lawfully citizen of this country, file green card or visa applications for relatives to come into this country. And, you know, that's a very, by the way, expensive if you hire an attorney and things like that.

And why wouldn't we help people who are here in this country and citizens of this country apply for their family Members to come here first in priority to people who are, you know, you can't even identify if they're criminals or not. So why is that a priority of the Administration?

I believe that the uses of these funds can also be used for that. And in fact, the legal aid assistance is largely to help with, again, filing paperwork for people who are here legally, temporarily, as well as their families. And so this is just, that is, I would say it's not a correct way to look that.

Look at these funds as if it is just for illegal immigrants.

All right, thank you.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to build upon a point that Assemblymember Bennett was talking about. When Trump was in office the first time, from 17 to 20, our Department of Justice sued 123 times, at least. And, and we're successful in two thirds of those.

Can you give an illustration of why it was important and what was the recovery that we got? Was there something about federal grants or infrastructure? Was there disaster money in there? Can you give us some highlights of that, of the litigation that we had?

I have some examples that I can share with the Committee. There was a lawsuit blocking the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census. And the Federal Government returned 850,000. And the lawsuit helped ensure that California continues receiving billions of dollars in federal funding annually to Fund programs and services.

There was a lawsuit to block immigration conditions on federal grants for local and state law enforcement. And the court ruled that the Trump Administration had acted legally, illegally and ordered the Federal Government to return to California over 20 million for fiscal year 17 and 30 million for fiscal year 18. So small dollars, but important.

Another lawsuit that resulted in the Department of Energy finalizing four energy efficiency rules, which is expected to generate over 8,8 billion over 30 years. So those are just some examples of some of those lawsuits that we prevailed on.

So in even one lawsuit prevailed, we could return billions of dollars. And in the last time we did this, we only used $42 million in this system that wasn't perfect. We had DOJ spend $42 million. Right. To get billions of dollars back. Correct.

I'm not sure what the 40 million is. I know we had. We provided 6.5 million.

Okay. So I'm just saying in the lawsuits in the past, in the past for, in that Administration. So I would say that it's important for I think this body and for the public understand that we are suing in the interest of Californians recovering these things. I mean, the President right now has talked about conditioning totally unrelated things.

And I want my Republic colleagues to understand this. Totally unrelated things to wildfire recovery right now. He's talking about that right now and putting strings to our own money. And to also build off of what a similar Patterson was saying. Look, my district has a high amount of visa holders that power Silicon Valley.

Whether they write code or they work in cafeterias, they are visa holders. And the point that someone Patterson was putting, putting out there, that our AG is joining in a multi state lawsuit is because the Trump Administration on first day is trying to end birthright citizenship, a norm since 1870s.

And if that is enacted, thousands of children in my district will no longer be citizens because you have to have both biological and they're very strict about biological. Biological parents have to be citizens. I would not have even been a citizen in that case.

Even Though we are lawful visa holders, the law extend or the order extends to not just undocumented people, but visa holders too.

So this is why I think it's important that we are putting resources to defend Californians because if my colleagues, you know, bring up those causes and care about the zero sum of nature of the, of the budget, if we scare off all the people that work in Silicon Valley, I don't think, I don't think people understand what's the gravity of our to our economy would be like as well.

So I appreciate answering all these questions and I think on highlighting the two thirds success rate, our scorecard is important.

And I thank our chair and the Assembly Budget Committee for saying how we need more transparency in our victory rate because it is important for the public to understand that we take the Federal Government not lightly, but it is important to take them to court when we need to. So thank you.

Thank you very much. We will now go to Assembly.

Elhawary, thank you so much, Mr. Budget Chair, as well as you all for answering our questions.

I wanted to ask if when distributing money that we have kind of, you all have worked with some of these nonprofits in the past already, do we have a good sense of which are better equipped to support and protect immigrants based on kind of their track record and the ways in which they've already been able to support some of our folks, our immigrant communities?

Chris Cook with Department of Finance I can't speak to the readiness of the providers in those communities. I'm speaking specifically for the funding that's distributed through the Department of Social Services.

What I can say though is that the process in which they apply for the funds is competitive and they need to demonstrate that they actually can perform the legal services for those individuals in those communities. So through that application process, they are demonstrating that they can provide those legal services.

Thank you. Very helpful. In addition, just kind of being thoughtful around the ways in which our state, you know, and immigrant communities are, you know, not only spread across our state, but in some places are even more might have a larger percentage of immigrants.

Is it possible or are we being thoughtful around how the money might have an equity component to ensure that parts of the state that maybe don't have as much access to legal services are being prioritized in some way?

I can speak to the Access to justice Commission, the $5 million which was created about four years ago to kind of address the issue that you're raising. Assemblymember. So this targets specifically more rural areas and also areas where there are more indigent immigrants and individuals needing support.

It's a capacity building grant program to help kind of more professionalize some of these smaller legal aid organizations. And with the Equal Access Fund, we're talking about 115 entities that receive this Fund every year. Certain offices like the California Rural Legal Assistance Organization, for example, they have 15 offices across the state.

And then a lot of them are focused in the Central California and other areas where there is a high concentration of farm workers.

Thank you.

And I would just add through the Department of Social Services, similarly, they've been taking a lot of efforts to increase capacity in the state. And I would say that, you know, in the Central Valley and the Central coast, they have increased the number of dollars that have gone to those regions.

Specifically for Central Valley, they've increased their allocations up upwards of 38% from the prior allocation period. And in the Central Coast, 28% increases from the prior year. So they have been making concerted efforts to expand provider capacity in those communities.

Great, thank you. And lastly, I wanted to just share, last week in our Budget Committee hearing, we had an opportunity to talk about wildfire relief.

And I shared that in some of our communities, and in particular in Altadena, where my family was impacted by the wildfires, there are many undocumented immigrants and immigrant families overall who are really just nervous about even getting wildfire assistance and wildfire relief because of everything going on with the federal Administration right now.

And I think it's incumbent upon us to really not make this a mutually exclusive issue when we're talking about the ways in which we support our immigrant communities who power our state and our country every day, that we are really thoughtful around the ways that we protect them overall.

And so just really grateful for the work that you all are doing so that we aren't thinking about these as two totally separate issues, but ultimately the ways that we really invest in our immigrant communities so that, you know, as folks who are suffering and who are really worried about what might happen and with this federal Administration, that we're not keeping these as two separate things, but really being thoughtful around how we protect all of our communities in this really difficult time for so many of us.

So thank you for, for your support today.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Go to Assembly Member Macedo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's actually a great segue into what I'd like to talk about, because where I represent is a high volume of indigent ind. zero my goodness, indigent immigrant communities that I would hope these funds would help. But given the constraints of the budget.

I would argue that there's higher priorities here than suing the Trump Administration because that same place is has communities without clean and reliable drinking water and farmland being fallowed because there is no water. We need water, and wildfire victims need help to rebuild, and we're on the way to doing that.

But in my opinion, we should work with President Trump to help these victims to build our water infrastructure and lower costs, not pick legal battles. If the Governor feels that this is needed, why can't the Attorney General reprioritize his existing budget?

Because that same community that I'm talking about, he clearly found the money within his $938 million budget to sue a small town in my district.

Again, the Department of Justice, as well as other departments do have perhaps small amounts of funding that they could use in regards to litigation. This is all in anticipation of funds that might be necessary going forward. And, you know, repurposing of dollars away from other tasks and activities may not be possible in some cases.

So you're going to take the money from these communities that we're trying to protect to pay the legal fees to help them in return, is what I'm understanding.

We're not planning on taking any funding away from those communities. This is something that is coming, additional funding from the General Fund, not from other programs.

So my question is, is there an ability to reprioritize these funds if this money does not come? We can still operate with the plan to pursue all of the legal action that you need to do, give the legal aid to those folks with or without this money?

To some extent, some departments, again, may be able to do that and they will potentially hit up against a wall at some point should there be additional litigation that they cannot absorb.

Okay.

I appreciate your answers. I am asking, and I think we're all wanting here. We need more clarity in what this plan is. And, you know, it's a lot of kind of, I don't know or I can't say for sure. This is money that we need in the State of California.

So I want it to go if it's going to pass. Being in the super minority, I might not have as much say in that as I'd like to. It's going to actually helping people and not perpetuating an agenda. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member. I just want to take my prerogative as chair to jump in here and just maybe help clarify something. And maybe, maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but my understanding was this was an authorization and not an expenditure.

And so what we're talking about here is the ability, should it be necessary, for the Department of Finance with notification to the JLBC to request additional funds.

And so in the event that there is no violation of the law, that there is no violation of the US Constitution, that no one's constitutional rights are being infringed, we could be in a position where we don't end up spending any of this money.

Right. And just to I'd like to reiterate, and I apologize if that wasn't clear, that this is an up to amount up to 25 million that can be accessed. We still have to provide notification to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and allow for a 10 day review of that prior to any accessing of those funds.

And our hope is that we don't have to access those funds, but it is there should departments need it.

Thank you. And I think that's an important clarification for people to understand and I always hesitate to speak for colleagues, but I think all of us hope that there is no violation of anybody's constitutional rights and there is no need for litigation and there is no need for us to spend those funds.

So I think as we're having this conversation, it's important for people on the Committee and also for Members of the public to understand we are setting that money aside if we need it, providing the opportunity with oversight for those monies to be spent. But we're not actually moving $25 million into it to Fund litigation today.

With that, let's go to Assemblymember Bonta.

Thank you so much, Chair. My questions and comments are Primarily directed at SB2X1, which is the Immigration Services and Legal Services. Support for immigrants in the State of California generates $4 trillion in our economy, is that correct? Roughly.

We remain the fifth largest economy in the world, put it that way.

There we go.

And certainly the entirety of the United States is essentially dependent on our ability to generate $4 trillion worth in our economy for wildfires throughout the country, for the ability for different states to be able to have the funding that they need for health care, for anything in the California's, in the California Budget and Policy Center documents that we've received or that I have.

Undocumented Californians contribute $8.5 billion in taxes to state and local communities. Roughly. Is that a fair number from the report generated by the California Budget and Policy Center?

I'm not, I'm not familiar with that report.

Well, we'll take it and I'm happy to share it with all of you. So the $25 million that we have generated for the support of immigrants, some questions certainly that we've heard so far, really kind of is that needed?

Last week, the Trump Administration reversed more than a decade of policy, saying it will no longer direct immigration agents to AVO sensitive locations like schools, hospitals, and churches.

I know in my community that children are now not going to school, that people who are experiencing domestic violence or interpersonal violence are no longer reporting incidents, that people who are potentially experiencing wage theft are likely not going to be reporting those because they are worried and concerned as undocumented Californians that they could be swept up.

It seems to me like it makes sense for US to invest $25 million, which is, by the way, 0.03% of the amount of money that undocumented Californians pay into this state, to be able to ensure that people who experience mixed status, who are undocumented, who are on a pathway to be able to, to receive citizenship, who are contributing daily to our economy, have the rightful representation and contribution to be able to ensure that they are protected.

Our law enforcement agencies and Ayes agencies know no bounds, and they will certainly not be able to distinguish between a child who is brown, Latino, and documented and one who is not.

We are at a critical moment in terms of protecting our immigrants in the State of California, which, by the way, fuel the economy of the entire United States in their contributions. And I'm thankful that we have an opportunity to have SB2X1 as a means to be able to provide just a modicum of that support.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Assemblymember Zbur.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for being here today. I wanted to just make 22 points. One, I heard a little bit about concern that the activities of Council, the suggestion that activities of Council should be restricted and should not include being at a press conference, for example.

I just want you to know that I don't agree with restricting counsel to do anything other than what Council would normally engage in. And obviously there's a public value in making sure that counsel is involved in public education about what the lawsuits are, about what the, what the effects of the lawsuits are.

Counsel plays a legal role in the practice of law that includes public education. And so I just wanted to sort of push back on, didn't want to let the day go by without pushing back on the assertion that Council should be limited to less than what Council would normally do in any other case.

So that's just a comment. Second thing is, I don't view this and Tell me if I'm wrong in the way that I look at that. This isn't about suing the Trump Administration. This is about protecting Californians and California families. It's about helping people.

It's about making sure that whatever happens at the federal level, and we don't know what that's going to be to a great extent yet, that our government is actually looking out for the rights of California families. And that is about whether or not folks that are in mixed status families can remain here.

It is not an insignificant set of rights and something that people don't care about.

If you are in a mixed status family, and it obviously affects American citizens to make sure that our government is looking out for those families and making sure that they have the right to work, that their kids have the right to go to school without fear, that they have a right to obtain medical care, all of the things that normal families do.

We don't know yet what the effect of these federal policies are going to be. And this isn't about suing the Trump Administration. It's about protecting California families, many of whom are mixed status.

And also families that may not even be of mixed status, but may look like they're immigrants and will be caught up in policies that if there's not someone looking out for them, we're going to have a lot of folks harmed.

So I just, you know, I just want to push back on this notion that what we're doing is insignificant and about picking a fight. I hope we don't have to pick fights. I hope that the effect of what comes out of Washington, D.C. isn't, is pulled back, frankly.

I mean, I don't like what I've seen over the last few days saying that we've had normal law abiding citizen, normal law abiding citizens and people who are not criminals and who are paying working to pick our food and to work in the tech sector and caring for our elderly and people who are sick.

That those folks are getting caught up in these raids, that is not good for the families. It's not good for Californians, it's not good for our economy.

And we have a state interest in making sure that policies that are advanced at the federal level are consistent with California values and that the legal rights of our people are actually being upheld and protected. So I just want to thank you.

If there's anything that I've said that's inconsistent with the goals of this, please feel free to comment.

Thank you very much. And I'll go to Assemblymember Schultz.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have any questions for those presenting, but I just want to thank you for the information. I want to make three very brief observations. First, Mr. Chair, for the sake of time, I was going to raise the same point as you, so I won't repeat you.

But I do think that whether you support the proposal or not, it's important to be very clear with the public that what we're talking about is an authorization to expend, not necessarily an expenditure, and that information needs to be accurately conveyed to the public by everybody involved. That's number one.

The second thing is I heard multiple comments, and by the way, I just want to say, as someone new to the body, I do appreciate the way in which the conversation has been had today. I know that not everyone here necessarily agrees, but I think that the tone and tenor has been productive.

There were concerns raised about whether the governor's proposal now and whether specifically SB1X1 and SB2X1 are beyond the call of the proclamation. I don't think that that's the case at all.

I just want to say for the record that when you read the proclamation, it talks about providing additional funding to California DOJ and other state agencies to either immediately file affirmative litigation or to take defensive measures against the Administration. And I echo the colleague. I echo the comments of Assemblymember Zabur. I hope that that doesn't happen.

But as I'll mention in a second, we're already going down that road. But I think that those Two bills, specifically SB1X1, clearly fits the parameters of that clause in the proclamation. And as to SB2X1, that falls under the clause that talks about other administrative actions to help mitigate the impacts of change in federal policy.

So I think that these two bills clearly fall within the call of the special session. The last thing I want to say is I want to at least give from one Assembly Member's perspective why I wholeheartedly support both of these bills.

I think the public should understand why we support it, and not just because the Governor is asking for it in local government. And then most recently, like all of you, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

I've spent my entire career as an attorney and, yes, most recently at California Department of Justice, studying it and trying to safeguard the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms that everyone in this country should be entitled to.

And I am more afraid now than I have probably ever been in my entire life about what I'm seeing coming down from the Federal Government. I'm going to Give one very concrete example. A week ago today, President Trump was inaugurated, and within less than 24 hours, he issued an Executive order.

I would argue, based upon my legal training and experience, fundamentally changing the Constitution of the United States. That's not a power that the Executive branch has.

I won't say it out loud now, but if you all Google Article 5 of the US Constitution, the ability to change the Constitution or any amendment thereof, is given to only two sources, the Congress or 2/3 of the state legislatures. The words President and Executive have no place in the fifth in Article 5 of the Constitution.

Now, perhaps the Trump Administration would argue that they were simply clarifying what the Constitution really means. Well, then they can take that matter to court. They're more than able to petition the courts. And I will say, reading the President's Executive order, it sounds awfully like a decision that you might see from a district court.

But the point I'm trying to make is this. For decades, I have seen the erosion of legislative check on Executive power. And in the last week since this Executive order came down, I haven't seen any meaningful rebuke from Congress or the Supreme Court or anyone for that matter. The fox is very much guarding the henhouse here.

And the point I'm trying to make is that we have to be proactive. We have to stand up and say that what this Executive branch is doing is wrong and it. It violates not only our Constitution, but it violates the essential freedoms to which we are all guaranteed.

So I'm supporting the governor's proposal because somebody has to stand up. Other than California and the 21 other states and a few nonprofits that have joined the fight, who else will stand up against unchecked Executive power?

Now, I know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may not agree with me on all the points that I've made today, but I do think that that is an important consideration that every Californian should have a vested stake in.

We should care about what this Administration thinks that it can do and really what it has no power or ability to do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Now go to Assemblymember Ortega. Any other Members of the Committee questions, comments, Assembly Member?

In regards to the timeline, I'm glad we're clarifying that as long as none of our constitutional rights or laws are broken, we will not need to utilize that piece of the funding. But for the organizations that are doing legal rights and education, that is going to be rolled out immediately to get to people as soon as possible.

Is that correct?

That's correct. That other 25 million is. Those are actually allocations.

Thank you. I want to lift up because the timeline was questioned about why we're not waiting. Communities like mine are being terrorized right now. And it goes back to the fires.

While our community was evacuated in Sylmar because of the fires, and our power was out across the Northeast San Fernando Valley, we simultaneously were getting reports about rates that we later found out were not accurate. But the terror is real right now.

When we see Homeland Security trucks being reported at our local Costco in Pacoima and we have to verify what's about to happen, people stop going to the grocery store to replace those groceries that they lost while the power was out for 60.

So I want to just lift up the fact that this is not about only about protecting us in the future. It's about ensuring that our communities now know what their rights are and have protections now, because it is happening now in communities like mine and across California. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member. Any other Members? Assemblymember Quirk-Silva.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate all the comments on both sides. And I think this is where we are in the State of California with two stories, two tales, two narratives. And when we have such belief on both sides, it's hard to see through any. Is there a gray area?

Is there a way that you can believe two things at once? And I think there is. I think we can believe that California needs to prepare to protect some of our most vulnerable Californians. We can also look to the past of the 2016 Administration.

And my colleague said it very gracefully from San Jose, that we, in fact, did have to fight. And those fights brought back millions, even billions of dollars to California, that all of our communities benefit, all of them, not just Los Angeles, not just Orange County, but the Central Valley.

Because the funds that come from the Federal Government come to all of ours, whether it's education funds, whether it's disabled funds. These funds come into our community. So we can stand up for this and believe that it's important to protect Californians.

But we can also look towards the future and know that, yes, we want a relationship with the Trump Administration, which is why you saw the Governor meet him at the airport. And you can do two things at once, my friends. You can do two things at once.

You can reach out, you can protect, and you can also collaborate. We have not done that very well as Americans. Today is the remembrance of the Holocaust. We've seen a story before, and yet what have we seen? Is that 50% of Americans stand on one site. 50%. So what we continue to find is nuggets.

Nuggets to stand up and say, see, we won. It's criminals they're trying to defend. No, they clearly said it's a civil litigation. But we want to be right. And when we do this, it's at the despair of our constituents because all of our constituents have undocumented workers. Our economy in California is based off of hospitality.

Our entertainment in California is based off of hotels. I have the resort area, Disneyland, Knott's Berry Farm. We have many people who come in and work in the restaurants. And when we talk about immigrants, we're not just talking about people coming from the southern border. We're talking about Koreans, Filipinos. We are talking about unseen, undocumented.

And yet we make winners and losers. Well, those with the visas, who are the engineers? They're okay. No. Who does the work in California? Who picks the crops?

And by the way, when we have people not showing up to work because they're afraid, and somebody could argue all day with me and say, well, it's not really the raids. That's not really happening. They're just the criminals. People are afraid. And they're afraid to send their kids to school. College students are afraid to go to school.

And when those enrollments go down, whose districts are going to be affected? Small districts can't afford to lose students. And that's going to impact all of our districts. All of them.

So when we talk about gardeners, when we talk about housekeepers, when we talk about cooks, I ask you to go and look at those people and see who is doing that work. Because our California economy is run off the backs of immigrants. So stop trying to make winners and losers here because I'm tired of the rhetoric.

And I will stand up every day to protect the most vulnerable in our communities. And I'm tired of this nonsense.

Thank you, Assemblymember.

Assemblymember Coloza, thank you to our chair, and thank you to our budget team, the Assembly staff, and the Governor's office for bringing this before us. I don't have any questions for the staff.

I just wanted to echo some additional thoughts to what my colleagues already mentioned, especially Assemblymember Quirk Silva and our Democratic Caucus share, as well as Assemblymember Lee and Schultz. I fully support both of these bills before us.

And, you know, as somebody who is a proud immigrant, as somebody who immigrated to this country and somebody who represents Northeast la, East LA, and South Glendale, home to a really vibrant immigrant community, a Lot of Latinos, Armenians, Filipinos and so many other immigrants.

This is really important for me to stand up and just make sure that my community knows that I support these two bills. I actually had by swearing in with the community yesterday, and it was beautiful.

We had hundreds of people come and we also had a resource fair there to make sure that the community had the resources that they needed. And one of the things that we heard was this, is that people are scared.

We have grocery stores and sorry if I'm getting a little emotional, but that's what this is for a lot of us. It's. It's very triggering. And people in the community were really scared, as you heard, to go to the grocery store, to even go out in public, because many families have mixed status households.

And that's what this means. It's not just words on a page. This is really life or death for a lot of our families. I implore a lot of my colleagues who don't support this Bill, truly think of your constituents in your district that haven't spoken up, because this is going to impact them.

And this could go through the normal budget process. But it's actually a good thing that this is happening during special session, because the time it takes to get this money ready, these few months that we're buying, could mean the difference of families being broken apart or whether or not they stay together.

So I just wanted to voice that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Assemblymember. Assemblymember Ortega.

Just want to thank my colleagues. I had a question. You know, I came here as an undocumented child at 3 years old. So for me, this is about the American dream. It's not just about the farm workers. It's not just about grocery workers or, you know, other workers. It's about the American dream.

It's about Assembly Members, too, unfortunately, or fortunately, I don't walk around this country with my passport or my naturalized citizenship that I got under a Republican President, President Reagan.

So in the event that I attend a church or I attend a gathering and there is mass deportations happening, looking for, quote, criminals, and I happen to get picked up in one of those, what recourse do I have in protecting my constitutional right as an American citizen? And will these legal funds help that?

Chris Cook again with Department of Finance. I could speak to the 10 million that's going for the Immigration Services Fund at the Department of Social Services. I would say that first and foremost, one, the funds cannot be used in protection of individuals who are convicted criminals.

A and then two, these funding can be used for legal defense for removal. So in the case of someone being trying to be actively removed from their home who are citizens or have visas and whatnot, it can be used to protect those individuals.

Thank you. Assemblymember, any other comments, questions? All right, Seeing none. I want to thank our panelists for their testimony. I want to thank the Assembly Members. I also wanted to add my own voice to the conversation.

And maybe, like my colleague from Burbank, some of this was my personal experience as an attorney, because I've actually worked on issues that I think speak to both of the concepts that we're discussing here today.

First is the issues that came up around domestic violence, and I want to clarify that because I think there was some confusion about all of that. Legal aid in this context has always been bipartisan.

And in fact, it was Governor Schwarzenegger that was a big proponent that did a lot of work to increase these legal services and to increase these legal aid.

And one of my first cases as a young attorney was to work with a nonprofit, the Inner City Law center in Southern California, to defend a victim of domestic violence, a woman who was suffering horrific violent abuse.

And a lot of folks who are subject to domestic violence, they don't have the resources to go out there and hire a private attorney. They don't have the resources to go out there and defend themselves. They may not have the same access to the justice system.

And so it is really because of legal aid attorneys working oftentimes with the private bar and other attorneys that they're able to go into court and get the domestic violence restraining orders that often save their lives.

And there is a real immigration nexus here that I experienced, because in my case, I was working with someone whose immigration status was in flux, very much exactly the kind of person that Assemblymember Patterson was suggesting that we should help and support.

And her abuser was a citizen, and her immigration status was in flux, and he was using that as leverage to try to prevent her from seeking a domestic violence restraining order.

So I think I would really encourage every Member here to go back, talk with your legal services providers, talk with the people who are doing the domestic violence restraining orders, who are in court protecting women and children who have been subject to horrific, violent abuse.

And I hope that when you do that, every person here will come back and say, you know what? Some of the best dollars that we spend as a state are protecting women and girls who are threatened by violence.

I also want to speak a little bit to the second part of this, which is about protecting the constitutional rights of of California residents and of California taxpayers. And to me, this shouldn't be a controversial thing.

The idea that if anyone, including the Federal Government, takes action to violate the constitutional rights of Californians, that we would stand up. Literally, weeks ago, every single one of us took an oath. We didn't take an oath to a person. We didn't take an oath to a king.

We took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California. So, to me, it should be clear as day that all of us have an obligation to do that, and we should stand up and protect Californians, and we should stand up and protect California taxpayers.

And I had the incredible privilege to be part of the team that sued the first Trump Administration when they ended the DACA program. The State of California was intimately involved in that, as was the UC. That case went up to the United States Supreme Court.

And it was a conservative justice, Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by a Republican President, who wrote the opinion finding that the Trump Administration had broken the law by ending the DACA program. So this is about standing up for people's constitutional rights. It's about standing up for the rule of law.

And to me, that should not be a partisan concept. That should be something that all of us can link arms again. We are always seeking cooperation with our federal partners. I was very encouraged by what the President said when he came to Los Angeles. I believe that he does want to help us.

I believe that he is going to deliver the aid that people in our community in Southern California desperately need. But the idea that we would prepare ourselves to defend the rights, the constitutional rights of Californians, to me, is something that all of us literally took an oath to do.

And the proposals before us are very much consistent with that. So with that, I want to thank all of our colleagues for an excellent conversation. We will have the opportunity to vote on these bills very, very soon. And I'll now open the floor to public comment.

Good afternoon, chairmembers. Elise Borth here on behalf of the Immigrant Legal Resource center, to express our support and appreciation for the proposed 25 million in state funding for immigration and social services.

As the Trump Administration pledges to enact the largest deportation program in US History history, it's imperative that immigration legal service providers have the resources in place to defend California families against deportation and family separation.

The $25 million in proposed funding will be a vital lifeline to help thousands of Californians access the quality support that they so desperately need. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Catherine Blakemore. I'm with the California Access to Justice Commission. I currently have the privilege of serving as the chair. I want to just quickly say three things in light of the discussion that I had the privilege of listening today.

First, I was a legal aid lawyer for my entire legal career for 40 years, and I spent most of that time representing people with disabilities, including people with intellectual disabilities.

And what I'm learning from my former colleagues is, is that now, in this moment, people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families are afraid to send them to the services that are funded by Regional Center.

So these funds help people learn about their rights and how they can be safe and their health and safety needs can be met by attending the program. Second, the advantage of the Access Commission is that we can distribute our funds quickly. When the Bill is passed, we are ready to release our application.

And we think, as Jennifer Kim said, it will take about two months, maybe a little bit longer, to get those funds into the hands of the legal aid programs. And third, we are mandated to look at ways that we can ensure that the services are available statewide. And we do that by targeting smaller nonprofits.

We're currently in last year's funding cycle working with a program that's a very small legal services program housed in a church in its rural community and eligible for our funding because they deliver legal aid, but in a very innovative kind of way.

So I want to assure you we will put these funds to good use for civil legal services. And thank you for the opportunity to do so.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Members. My name is Rebecca Gonzales and I'm a policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We appreciate the special sending spending, special session funding to the Equal Access Fund and grant funding through One California and California Access to Justice Commission.

Legal service organizations are often the first line of defense for Low income and immigrant communities facing legal issues. So this funding will be critical. Thank you so much for your partnership.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. My name is Anieli Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center. I'm here to support the Legislature's proposal to provide 25 million in state funding for immigration and civil legal services.

State funded legal services programs help thousands of students, workers, families, and vulnerable individuals across immigration and other key legal services every year across California. This past December, CIPC was proud to partner with over 140 organizations to submit a letter requesting an increase in funding for legal services to protect immigrant communities from deportation.

Our state is home to the largest immigrant population in the country. Nearly 11 million Californians are immigrants and 2.7 million are undocumented. As the Trump Administration pledges to enact the largest deportation program in US History, it is critical that California Increases public funds for immigration legal services to protect our neighbors, children's workers and families from deportation.

Publicly funded legal services help families keep families safe and secure. We respectfully request you to pass its proposed 25 million for immigration and civil legal services that thousands of Californian California families rely on. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members Greg Polsfer, on behalf of Equality California, just want to express our strong support for both of these bills. In particular, the funding for direct legal assistance will help to help to support the immediate legal needs of LGBTQ communities, immigrants and others who are already being targeted by the New Administration.

And we expect those threats to only grow in the weeks and months to come. So appreciate the work of this Committee in the Assembly in protecting the legal and constitutional rights of all California residents. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Barbara Schmitz. I'm here on behalf of First5California. We also are in support of both bills and we appreciate the opportunity to. Help protect families and of course, the. Young children, infants and toddlers that are. Part of our mission and our core. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Chair Members Ashley Walker, on behalf of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, we are in support of both bills, particularly want to give support for SB1X2.

We want to note that it's very critical that the state Fund removal defense for immigrants in California facing deportation proceedings and for know your rights outreach in the light of ramped up Federal Immigration Enforcement actions against immigrant communities across our nation, including our state and in Monterey County. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Lang Lei from Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. We are in strong support of both bills and it's critically important for our Asian and Pacific Islander community who have tremendous needs, especially during this time and especially given the fires. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right, seeing no more comments from Member of the public, let me again thank the folks from the Administration for being with us today. I also want to thank the staff, both the Democratic and Republican staff. Thank you for your assistance as always in putting together the hearing.

To the sergeants and all the other folks who make this possible. As I mentioned, we will have the opportunity to vote on these bills soon. And with that, this hearing is adjourned.

It. Sat.