Senate Standing Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review

The Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review will come to order. We're holding our committee hearing here in 1021 O Street, Room 1200. I ask all members of the committee to be present so we can establish our quorum. Public comment will be heard after all items are presented, and I'm gonna say it in a minute, but given what it looks like for public comment possibilities, I will be limiting to one minute.

So start to think about that if you had come and thought you were going to address us with extensive comments. So today, we're gonna hear Assembly Bill 109, the Budget Act of 2026. I also will note that we have several revenue trailer bills related to the budget in print, the details of which are still being worked on, and we may bring those for a hearing later in the week. But today's hearing is focused on the legislative budget agreement.

Assembly Bill 109 represents a budget plan that includes approximately 355.9 billion in total spending, 253 billion of which is in the General Fund. It's balanced for both 2026 and '27 and 27-28 fiscal years. It maintains $36.5 billion in combined total reserves, responsibly budgeting for economic security in future years. It includes significant Senate input. We had 54 Senate subcommittee hearings and six full committee hearings prior today and the package in front of us represents that combined work.

Our state continues to face some hard choices in this budget, and in making these hard decisions, the Legislature's come together and remain faithful to the framework put forth by the Senate which was-- that we were committed to responsible budgeting. We maintain the vital programs California depends on. It takes a balanced approach, making targeted reductions and adopting 5 billion in new revenues. Most significantly, this bill delays until July 1st, 2027.

The governor's proposed new cuts to Medi-Cal beneficiaries with unsatisfactory immigration status, UIS, such as eliminating coverage for asylees. It delays until July 1st, 2027 the cuts to UIS Medi-Cal beneficiaries from last year's budget that were scheduled to take effect this year, such as clinic payment reductions and the loss of dental benefits. It provides up to a $190 million in forgivable loans for distressed hospitals and 250 million additionally to support public hospitals.

It adopts the Be Home Soon Program to safely transition older adults and people with disabilities out of nursing homes and hospitals and back home or to the community with family and caregivers, saving the Medi-Cal program hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

It preserves current childcare slots and adds 22,770 new childcare slots in 26-27. It provides additional funding for affordable housing in the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Program, or HHAP. It maintains funding for in-home support services, rejecting all of the governor's proposed reductions. It provides funding for a variety of other areas including CalFood, county administration for Medi-Cal and CalFresh, immigrant legal aid, new judgeships, and courthouse construction.

I'm grateful for our partnership with the administration and the Assembly as we work to ensure California's fiscal stability. I look forward to having an agreement with the administration very soon. I'd like to thank all who have worked in drafting this budget, including the Assembly and the staff, and after hearing the bill, we will have a public comment prior to voting. Before we begin, I'm gonna ask the Vice Chair, Senator Niello, if he has any opening comments.

But of course, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the opportunity. So how many people here watch Fareed Zakaria's Sunday news show? You don't have to show hands, but every Sunday he does have a news show, and he begins each show with what he calls Fareed's Take. It's his take on particular things that are going on, and yesterday, it was about California.

He's not exactly a right-wing commentator nor is CNN particularly known to be highly critical of more left-leaning issues, but he took our state, at least the governance of our state, to very serious task. His title was: How California Became a Case Study in Failed Governance. The State's Economy is Dynamic. The Government is Sclerotic. Those are Fareed's words, not mine.

He went on to cite housing, people leaving, education, homelessness, sluggish job creation, all very helpful criticism from a liberal commentator, and I offer it up as such too as your loyal and friendly opposition. But he led with the fiscal record. He cited statistics since the year 2000, during which time population has increased by 15% while spending has grown to 100% on a per-person basis from 2,300 to $6,300 and total state employees up over 50%.

I didn't check those numbers because I think more relevant is the history of our fiscal situation since the current administration took over the state. During the eight years of this current administration, population growth has not existed. It's been completely flat while spending has increased 90%, that per-person number increasing from 3,300 to today's 6,300, and during that time, inflation was really quite low except just for the last two years.

Though I know to some of you the phrase grows very tiresome, it is very difficult to deny, as Mr. Zakaria's take implies, that California has a spending problem. And this budget does not have spending reductions sufficient to cover our ongoing structural deficit which will reappear sooner than we'd like to be left for the next governor to handle.

I'll repeat, as I have my entire time since I've been back in the Legislature following the lead of the advice of the ledge analyst, that the only way out of our structural deficit, which still exists, is to do the hard analysis of the efficacy and realistic sustainability of select spending programs. That hasn't been done, I don't see signs that on a comprehensive basis as I've suggested that it will be done, but I know the taxpayers of our state would very much appreciate that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair. I kept hoping that the tenth member would walk in while you were talking. We are one short of a quorum, so--

You want me to continue talking?

I didn't go that far, but I appreciate your comments. And so, we are gonna begin with Gabe Petek, the legislative analyst for a brief overview of the Legislative Budget Plan, and I apologize in advance because if a quorum walks in, I'll stop you and we'll call the quorum. So welcome to the committee.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, and members, for inviting me and our office to be here today. Your committee staff asked us to provide a brief overview of the legislative budget agreement and I'll do that walking through this short handout that you should have before you, and starting with sort of a high-level overview of the budget condition and then turning to some of the major or notable areas of departure in the legislative agreement from the governor's proposals.

And so, beginning on the first page, some of this the Chair has already stated, but the legislative agreement includes a total of 253 billion in General Fund spending, and notably, it includes the assumption of a higher level of resources. Specifically, this includes around 5.5 billion of higher revenues being assumed in this package than the May Revision.

And it also makes a somewhat smaller transfer to the temporary Surplus Holding Account which provides-- also frees up resources. So in total, there's about 8 billion in additional resources under the legislative agreement relative to the May Revision, and with that, the legislative package makes some different spending and budget choices, and so, as a result of that, even with the higher level of resources, at the end of the day, the budget condition is broadly very similar to the budget condition that we saw in the May Revision.

As the Chair referenced, there are about $20 billion in the Budget Stabilization Account and Special Fund for Economic Uncertainty combined. Those are, you know, two of the main reserves, and then also there's 9.5 billion in the Proposition 98 reserve as well. So with that, I'll move on to the next page and briefly touch on some of the major differences between this budget and the governor's proposal.

In schools and community colleges, the higher revenues translate to higher Proposition 98 guarantee and then the agreement also makes a somewhat smaller deposit into the Proposition 98 reserve, and so these additional resources under the legislative agreement are used to support programs and to support higher enrollment in the community colleges.

In state preschool and childcare, the agreement begins paying for the non-LEA state preschool programs using Proposition 98 funds, and so then there's a corresponding increase to re-benching of the Proposition 98 guarantee to account for this. The package also does not include the proposed reduction in childcare slots and actually provides additional funding to support nearly 23,000 additional slots. Okay.

In Health and Human Service programs, the agreement generally adopts a less extensive set of budget solutions than was assumed in the May Revision. The package delays implementation of several previously adopted Medi-Cal budget solutions and also does not include a number of the additional reductions proposed by the governor. And then there are also some additional select augmentations included in the package.

So some of the examples include retaining funding for in-home supportive services and adult protective services and delaying some of the previously adopted Medi-Cal solutions, and then in addition, providing some additional funding for counties and public hospitals in response to anticipated federal actions and funding certain one-time human service activities. In housing and homelessness, the agreement includes additional funding across several of the state's major homelessness programs.

Examples include the Multifamily Housing Program, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, HAPP Program, and then some homelessness programs administered by Department of Social Services. In Judiciary and criminal justice, the agreement includes infrastructure, funding, and some operational changes. There is authorization for 3 billion in lease revenue bond authority related to funding for courthouse construction and deferred maintenance.

And then the package also assumes some General Fund savings in CDCR and requires the closure of an additional prison. So that would generate additional savings as well. So that's high-level summary of the provisions and the budget condition under the package. So I'll stop there and pass it.

Thank you. I appreciate your comments. And then we'll move to Erika Li from the Department of Finance.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair Laird, Vice Chair Niello, and members of the Budget Committee. Erika Li with the Department of Finance, and thank you for the opportunity to provide response to AB 109, the legislature's budget for 26-27. And first, I would like to say that the administration appreciates the Legislature's framework resembles that of the May Revision.

It's balanced through two fiscal years with a positive state fund for economic uncertainty or our SFEU of 4.5 billion in the budget year, which was what was in our May Revision, as well as has a positive SFEU in the following fiscal year, 27-28, although at a smaller positive number, 122 million versus about 2.1 billion in the May Revision. And additionally, the Legislature's budget does reduce the outyear structural deficits that were identified both in the Governor's Budget and then more than halved in the May Revision.

So in these two ways, the Legislature's budget resembles the architecture for the May Revision. However, I would note, as Mr. Petek said, that the Legislature's budget does identify another 5 billion in revenue that is above what was included in the May Revision, as well as has some significant amount of new spending proposals that were not part of the May Revision. Furthermore, the Legislature's plan maintains the three main revenue proposals that were part of the balanced set of solutions that we included in the May Revision.

So in addition to some of the proposed reductions that were in the May Revision, the governor included three major revenue proposals. And understand that some of that will be up for further discussion later in the week. It also maintains some of the program reductions that were in the May Revision with some modifications, as well as proposes additional solutions that were not part of the May Revision. There are some delays, as was discussed, for solutions that were part of the 2025 Budget Act.

So we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this budget. We look forward to working with the Legislature over the next several days to finalize the 26-27 budget for the state of California, a budget that would reflect our priorities for the support of millions of Californians, as well as providing sound fiscal footing as we go forward, not just in the budget year but in the years beyond that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We had somebody step out and then somebody stepped in, so we're still at nine. So if-- ah, there's our quorum. Please call the roll.

[Roll call]. We have a quorum.

We have established a quorum. And that completed the comments to the committee. We're gonna go to the committee for questions and comments, and before I look to see who wants to speak, for those of you that came in late, let me just reiterate that several revenue trailer bills related to the budget in print, the details of which are still being worked on and we may bring those for hearing later in the week--more details to come--but they are not on today's agenda.

The only item we have on today's agenda is the budget bill. So let me look and see who would like to ask questions or make comments. I'll establish a a line if-- okay. Senator Durazo. Is there anybody else that wants to make a comment or question? Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Pardon? Okay. Then we'll start with Senator Durazo, and Senator Smallwood-Cuevas is on deck.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The questions-- I have several questions having to do with the Medi-Cal coverage losses, but just want to point out eight out of the 80 members of the Assembly side, less than 20% are enrolled in Medi-Cal. So that means as you get more and more and more districts, more and more members, or more districts in the state, there are more and more people enrolled in Medi-Cal. Eighty percent of Medi-Cal recipients live in 14 urban counties, 80%. So the impact of Medi-Cal losses is very severe.

In LA alone, 600,000 are at risk of losing Medi-Cal coverage. 600,000 people could show up at public hospitals and clinics, people without insurance, 600,000 new uninsured that counties are legally required to serve. Public hospitals face $4 billion in reductions, hospitals that operate top level trauma and burn centers.

Enormous impact on people, on counties, on the whole state, on families, on communities. So my first question is, is there any mechanism in this budget package that would allow the Legislature to restore Medi-Cal eligibility?

And who is your question directed to?

Whoever wants to answer it.

I'll take a shot at it. This is not our budget, but my understanding is that there are some delays in regards to some of the reductions that were in the 2025 Budget Act that would kick out some of the reductions for a year. That was for the clinic state-only Prospective Payment System, elimination of dental supplemental payments. There is also a proposal to kick out the start of the increased asset limit. So some of the proposals that were included in the May Revision as well as in the 2025 Budget Act have been delayed in this two-party agreement.

But I don't think those are in eligibility as far as Medi-Cal. Those are like-- you're right. The dental part of it, but not overall Medi-Cal eligibility.

Yeah. And I would point, too, some of the things that were included in the May Revision were in direct response to the impacts at the federal level with HR 1 in regards to the changes in eligibility, and I think that that was, again, speaking about the Governor's Budget as well as the May Revision. We can't backfill for every lost federal dollar and so we are also having to conform with what is happening on the federal level in regards to eligibility across the Medicaid program.

Carolyn Chu, Legislative Analyst's Office. The only thing I might offer in addition is that the legislative budget package does provide some additional funding for indigent care services for individuals who would otherwise be losing coverage due to the changes under HR 1 that the package conforms to, but as Ms. Li already mentioned, one of the kind of key facets of the legislative package is it delays the implementation of some of those reductions, which does provide some time, but there is no automatic mechanism to reinstate eligibility.

Okay. You're right. The eligibility-- the requirements are put in by HR 1 or by the federal government. We don't have to adopt those. In other words, write the work requirements. Anything else that the federal government does, we don't have to adopt them. I guess they just--

No, it is not required under federal law for the state to conform. The state could use its own resources to maintain coverage but without federal matching monies.

And nothing in AB 109 or these trailer bill-- well, we don't have the trailer bills since we just found out last night. AB 109 creates a restore-- nothing creates a restoration reserve. The budget locks in savings from coverage reductions as a structural baseline, so, meaning this is-- today when we vote on this, it's for permanent cuts, right?

The delayed reductions in coverage and eligibility are slated under this particular package to begin at the start of not the upcoming fiscal year but the fiscal year one further forward and on an ongoing basis.

Right. Permanent cuts. Permanent cuts. Okay. This budget also assumes that immigrants should lose their coverage due to work requirements. Very difficult to prove for essential workers who cannot certify their employment. So why are we implementing work requirements that are not mandated by the federal law and that will cause Californians to be frozen out of Medi-Cal once they're dropped from coverage?

The original proposal to extend the community engagement or work requirements to the UIS population was one originally made by the administration as part of an effort to bring down the structural deficit, so I would defer to them on the kind of underlying rationale, but this package reflects that proposal.

The budget reflects $571 million in savings from transitioning UIS enrollees from managed care to fee for service. How many individuals will lose their managed care coverage and what specific services will they no longer be able to access under fee for service?

Laura Ayala, Department of Finance. Approximately 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 individuals are currently estimated to be of an unsatisfactory immigration status, and managed care will be transitioned to fee-for-service, and it will be to full scope. Nothing changes in coverage. The only two services that will not be covered in fee-for-service, because they're not currently federally allowed to be, are enhanced case management and community support, which are part of CalAIM.

But everything else is the same in fee-for-service as it is in managed care in terms of services and benefits.

Okay. And why is this amount of money, $571,000,000, not being redirected into restoring access to Medi-Cal eligibility?

The proposal reflects the current estimate of utilization that individuals are obtaining. Any reduction in costs is currently used to balance the budget. So we could spend that same amount of money, but then we would have to make cuts elsewhere to continue to balance the budget.

And I would just add that that was part of the overall structure of the May Revision: to realize those savings and to use it to support broadly the rest of the budget, which includes the Medicaid program.

So this budget's basically on the backs of those people?

This budget, the May Revision, and what has been incorporated in the two-party plan is a balanced solution to attempt to address the deficits that we're seeing both in the near term as well as in the out term, the structural deficits.

This bill allocates $125,000,000 for emergency services for people losing Medi-Cal due to HR 1. How many people will lose coverage entirely? And how did you arrive at that $125,000,000 to make sure it was sufficient to cover the projected uncompensated care costs at our hospitals?

I'll defer to the LAO or my Senate colleagues to explain the amount that they are investing for indigent care. But the May Revision estimated that approximately 1.3 million individuals will lose coverage by full implementation associated with HR 1.

We would need to defer back to the committee and sub chairs on how the amount was arrived at.

Okay. This budget bill allocates $213,000,000 for county Medi-Cal workload. The counties are simultaneously absorbing increased uncompensated care at county hospitals due to state cuts like the enrollment freeze and federal cuts from HR 1. Have you modeled the aggregate fiscal impact on counties from this budget and HR 1?

We did write a report earlier this spring about the increase in uncompensated care that would result from the confluence of both changes made to coverage over the course of the last couple of budgets as well as the impacts of HR 1. And we arrived at uncompensated care to hospitals being in the range of a few billion dollars.

Okay. I don't know, Mr. Chair, that since the agenda was changed to exclude AB 177, are we asking questions on that today?

No, we're not. We will have a separate hearing if that comes in front of us.

Okay. Okay. Those are my questions.

Thank you very much. Then we'll go to Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Blakespear is on deck.

And I'm appreciating the questions from my colleagues, and thank you to the administration for that brief overview. I know Senate leadership, you, Mr. Chair, and our budget subcommittees have been working very hard on this over these last few months, navigating what has been a really incredibly difficult budget year.

I think, along the lines of my colleagues, I'm concerned about this budget because of who is carrying the burden. The most are poor, working-class, Black and Brown Californians who are going to be hurt the most by what we're looking at today. And it gives me great concern, not just for families who will lose benefits, those who will be crushed in the gears of this eligibility nightmare that the federal administration has placed California in.

And so much of our work through the ACA, all of the work that we've done to build a health care system for all. As a Democrat, I'm very proud of the work that we've done over these past few years, and particularly how California has stood up and how every Californian did what they could to enroll in programs, only to start seeing the bricks being taken out of the infrastructure by this federal government. And unfortunately, in this budget that we're voting on here today, there is no revenue.

There is not one dime coming in to help hold on to our infrastructure.

And I know that there may be, as you said, these bills may come before us. But right now, we don't have that. What we have is a tremendous amount of deep cuts on some of our most vulnerable Californians. And I want to make sure I'm understanding what that looks like. I heard a part of it. How many Californians do we expect to lose their Medi-Cal coverage under the budget package that's before us right now?

I believe that was 1.1 million at full implementation as a result of HR 1.

Implementation. And of those individuals, do we know how many are currently working?

I don't have that answer.

We have some estimates of the share overall of the Medi-Cal population that works. I don't recall the exact percentage off of the top of my head, but it is somewhere around at least half.

And do we have a sense of what the estimates are regarding the sectors where these workers are concentrated primarily?

In terms of where Medi-Cal enrollees work overall, we'd have to get back to you on that.

I think there was some analysis, but it's not clear. And maybe there's some other analysis conducted on the impact of coverage loss on working families, mainly those who may not be able to afford employer-sponsored health care, and also those individuals who lose their Medi-Cal coverage but remain unable to afford private coverage. Where are they expected to go for care?

We'd be happy to take a look at the study you're referencing. But in terms of the loss of coverage for individuals who could not afford coverage on the marketplace or through employer-sponsored coverage with premiums, that I think is what has centered a lot of the conversation around the increases in the potential for uncompensated care.

Yeah. And we know that there are a tremendous amount of Californians who are working full time, who are earning not enough to afford the health care that is offered to them, or are not offered health care at all, and are relying on our safety nets. Nearly one in five, we estimate, of those jobs in California.

Those low-wage jobs that don't earn enough to afford health care rely on Medi-Cal and are enrolled in Medi-Cal, representing about $20,000,000,000, we think, in public spending, meaning taxpayer dollars that's subsidizing the health care of folks who work full time. Yet the federal government is requiring this process of having to reapply for eligibility, which we know is going to result in many folks losing their health care.

Particularly those who are going to lose their health care and food benefits. What spending has been accounted for in the state budget to ensure our underserved communities are not falling off? Those who are doing the right thing, those who are working but still not earning enough to have health care and rely on basic systems, and now will fall through the cracks. How do we make sure that they're not falling off?

There are two elements in the legislature's package that I would highlight. The first is additional funding to the counties for administration, both for Medi-Cal as well as for CalFresh, to help counties address these additional administrative requirements that individuals are going to need to meet to really remain in the programs, so long as they're maintaining eligibility.

In addition, there's also additional funding in the legislature's package for food banks as well, due to some of the churn that is likely to occur in people falling out of eligibility for the CalFresh program.

Thank you for that. And I'm also thinking about those workers who are in these very precarious employment realities. And I'm thinking about populations where we often see the last hired, first fired, folks who are in entry-level positions, where we see chilled access to employment. In my district, South LA, for example, half of the Black population in that district are on Medi-Cal. And they also have recessionary unemployment levels already.

Is there a system or program that we are investing in that can help to demonstrate job training, that could help demonstrate some employment bridge that ensures that folks will be able to still qualify for their health care given these arduous and ridiculous eligibility requirements that now we have to respond to through HR 1?

I would defer back to the committee in terms of whether there are any additional investments into workforce training programs or that sort of thing beyond what is proposed in the May Revision. But the administration also potentially could speak to the efforts that they've been undertaking to ensure that individuals who are eligible for any exemptions from the community engagement or work requirements are able to essentially achieve those exemptions.

I believe, if I'm recalling correctly, there are exemptions for counties, to your point about the recessionary employment issue, where if the unemployment rate is higher than, I believe, the national average, then there can be an exemption in terms of the work requirements. But we could also get back to you on the specifics of that exemption.

I would like to see those details. I guess the point that I'm getting to is that there are many ways that people are going to lose their health care. So we already know there's an undocumented population that is frozen out. We now see we have a UIS, our asylees, our refugees, who now are not covered.

We have vulnerable working communities that are working full time, but because of the precariousness of their employment and these arduous eligibility requirements, are likely to lose their care.

So I have to bring in this question about hospitals, because I know the Chair has talked a lot about distressed hospitals, and public hospitals and clinics in my district are essential. And they're also facing significant challenges. How does the administration assess the risk of service reduction or facility closures under the funding levels in this budget?

So so the, additional funds that were provided is that's part of the as part of the legislature's two plan, two party plan. I think as part of the mayor revision, there was language to allow up to another 50 milion for distressed hospitals in regards to the current program that exists already. And that is through one of our departments that does work with hospitals in regards to what their needs are.

For further data, I would have to to to speak with the department and the the types of information that they're collecting from hospitals in order to, see who is eligible or what hospitals are actually eligible for those dollars.

So that's a 250 million for, public hospitals.

So I I was speaking more about the current, hospital distress hospital program. But Okay. There is there are additional dollars for indigent care and public hospitals in the two party plan.

Yes. It's 250 million for public hospitals -

And my understanding is that the stakeholders early on in the process had identified the 500 million was needed for public and distress hospitals. Sure.

Sure. But on record

This is roughly half of that funding. And so how how was that level determined and does the administration believe this funding level stabilizes the affected hospitals? Or is additional action likely to be needed? I know we had just added another $25 million to those hospitals that we're gonna close within ten days.

So there are there are two pots in the legislature's package. I believe one is a $190 million for just for the distressed hospital program, which is program, which is what Ms. Lee was speaking to and under the framework originally proposed by the administration a couple years ago for that program.

And then and so the legislature's package is augmenting the amount of, funding available in that particular program, As well as adding 250 million for public hospitals specifically. So I'm not familiar with the the particular number you cited of 500 million. But across those two buckets, it does get quite close

to it. Okay. So I I mean, we get we're getting close but we're we still are falling short. We have communities that will not have care and then we have those who we suspect will be losing care just because of the way the system is structured. I you know, I I know that throughout this process we had talked a lot about difficult cuts.

And a lot of our decision making, was built around the challenges that we face with the structural deficit. Are there specific actions in this budget that permanently address the structural deficit? One before us today.

The well, the one before us today I I guess one I just to offer some perspective on also, some of Senator Durazo's comments as well. That it does there are when the state is facing a structural deficit, there there are these very difficult, you know, choices before the legislature partly reflecting the fact that a lot of what the state does is provide services to these these communities with low income and, disadvantage that that you're referring to.

In this particular package before you, I'll just point out again that there is the assumption of 5,500,000,000 in higher revenue which, you know, relative to the May revision, which enables the legislative package to delay and soften some of the effects on some of these policy changes. So relative to the May revision. And so that's that is certainly that is certainly, you know, something I think that you can compare to what the May revision included.

As far as the structural deficit goes, the the governors you know, I I would go back to, I think, to the May revision, which started, you know, in January facing an estimated $20 million structural deficit. And under the May revision package, it was reduced to about $10 million. And it, you know, it did include a number of, ongoing reductions over over the years. But in addition, some revenue increases broadening the sales tax base and limiting corporate, tax credit, access.

And so those things help generate about $2billion of additional revenue over the kind of over the period. So the combination of these actions, I don't know if there are others you would highlight as well. But it did it did make a sizable reduction to that structural deficit that we had been talking about.

But in the budget that we're adopting today, it's fair to say that the healthcare reductions included in this budget are being made before the legislature has sufficiently completed its discussion on revenue. I'm I'm sorry. Yeah. There is no revenue. The revenue Those those revenue solutions are not in this.

Let me

They are.

Let me speak to that. This budget assumes the revenue. We just do not have the bills for the revenue in front of us today.

It assumes. Okay. Okay. Well, my mother always says something about assume but I'm not gonna I'm not gonna remember it here. But I and I say that to say in in all seriousness is that essentially what this is are cuts that don't provide revenue to address the gaps that we know exist for workers, working people who are likely going to lose their care because of the impacts of HR 1.

We are, at the same time, freezing the most vulnerable populations out and we're trying to put a patch quilt of funding to kind of plug some of the holes. But the reality is, you know, the boat is is being threatened in a real way. And we don't have any sort of buoys. We don't have a tugboat. We don't have anything concrete that we're voting on that says there's gonna be some revenue.

Whether it be fair share so that the costs are not being shifted from major corporations onto taxpayers for covering their employees. Whether it be the governor's solutions and proposals. We don't have those things before us. So I, you know, we we need some assurances, that Californians, that today's budget decisions will not result in just cut cuts and cuts and plugging holes without a commitment to revenue to ensure that we are providing access to care in some of our most vulnerable, communities.

So I, you know I hope to get more information on some of the strategies for these working sectors that are going to be hit the hardest by these eligibility requirements and what training and safeguards can be put in place to to make sure that we hold them as carefully as we can and that we in fact do see the revenue side of this equation. Because without it, this becomes a very difficult budget that we know is gonna result in people losing their lives.

Thank you very much. We'll move to Senator Blakespear and Senator Richardson is on deck.

Okay. Thank you. I wanna start by thanking the Chair and the committee staff for their work in putting this budget together. And also wanna thank the LAO LAO and the Department of Finance and your teams for your hard work on this. At a time of significant fiscal uncertainty, I support the decision to maintain strong reserves and to adopt solutions that don't rely on one time actions.

Fiscal discipline matters. So preserving 36,500,000,000 in reserves is critical, especially considering risks of further federal funding cuts and economic downturn. I advocate for us to permanently get out of having a structural deficit. I'm going to go through a couple of different topics across the budget, now that I just wanna make a few statements about. And I am grateful to have been able to serve on budget sub two, about natural resources this year, and, I'm grateful to have been appointed to that position.

I'm supportive of funding at least 900,000,000 for round seven of HAPP. These resources will help local governments move people off the streets and into housing. 1,000,000,000 would be better. I'm concerned about the elimination of the commitment to fund HAPP round eight, and I'm concerned about having no allocation for encampment resolution funds.

The legislature must work with the next governor to make sure it's clear that getting to functional zero in Unsheltered Street homelessness is a priority so that people are not living in places that are unfit for human habitation.

Counties and cities need predictability if we expect them to build long term homelessness strategies. One year of funding is helpful and critical, but uncertainty about future funding makes planning and scaling of investments to reduce homelessness more difficult. I would like to talk now about wildlife coexistence funding.

Human wildlife conflicts are a growing concern across the state, and more funding for proactive science-based conflict prevention is necessary. We need to restart, a program that was funded for three years, the wildlife coexistence program, in order for it it to be successful.

I'll move now to, transit and GGRF. I'm supportive of the $418,000,000 allocation for the transit and inner city rail capital program. And the 814,000,000 for the state and federal mass transit program.

This provides critical funding to sustain transit agencies across the state, many of which are nearing a fiscal cliff, those in my district and also across the state. We also need to continue negotiations around the greenhouse gas reduction fund.

Things have changed, and I believe that the negotiation over the allocations of GGRF funds needs to be renegotiated and reopened so that important programs that we have supported in the state of California are not zeroed out.

I'm also concerned about reducing Prop 36 funding from a 100,000,000 to 50,000,000. Californians voted for this measure expecting results. Local agencies have expressed concern that demand is exceeding available resources, which is resulting in cost shifts for local government.

Without the necessary funding, county probation officers and sheriffs lack the resources to successfully implement treatment, diversion, and rehab rehabilitation services.

We need to provide funding to uphold the voters' intent and to ensure that the measure achieves its public safety and importantly its rehabilitation goals. I'm supportive of the inclusion of funding for distressed hospital loan fund forgiveness.

This funding provides stability to hospitals like Tri City Medical Center, which is in my district, that pro that serves communities with limited access and better prepares them for the impacts of HR 1. This year's budget does not include funding for local journalism, which is very concerning. Across the state, access to local news is diminishing.

Investments in local journalism ensure Californians have access to community-centered reporting that supports a healthy democracy. And programs like the local journalism fellowship and the civic journalism program place early-career journalists in newsrooms across the state and address newsroom consolidation.

It's critical that the legislature and the governor prioritize funding for programs like this in the budget. I also support the inclusion of funding for the Care Corp program. This is one of California's most important tools for connecting people with serious mental illness to treatment.

It gives families and providers a path to intervene early. This reduces the number of people who are cycling through our emergency rooms, our jails, and our streets. The legislature must continue to allocate funding to this program to support its expansion and to allow courts to help more people access the treatment they need to be successful. I support the decision to reject most of the governor's proposed position sweeps in our natural resources departments. This action preserves a range of critical positions including those for game wardens.

And finally, I support the budget's efforts to preserve access to health care for some of California's most vulnerable residents while taking responsible steps to ensure the long term sustainability of the Medi Cal program despite the federal impacts of HR 1.

The inclusion of a 125,000,000 for county indigent care is a critical investment to help strengthen California's health care safety net and ensure people who lose Medi Cal coverage can access life saving care. I know this will continue to be an ongoing conversation. And with that, I will turn it back to the chair. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll move to Senator Richardson and Senator Reyes is on deck.

Thank you Mister Chairman. So first of all, I want to start off my comments by making a comment to the ranking member, the minority leader of his reference about the state of California and you know, a news program that he saw over the weekend. I think it's important to talk about the fact that California is spending different because California is different than what we were before. Just on my quick phone of doing a quick Google, let me give you an example of what I'm saying.

In 1990, there were seniors 65 and older, 3,100,000. In 2010, that rose to 3.5, excuse me, yeah, million. And then in 2010, it rose to 4.2. And in 2020, seniors rose to 5.7. That's almost a 50% increase. Now, I have an 88 year old mother at home.

And I can tell you that, between the doctor's appointments and all of the care that's needed, things change, as you age. The care that you need changes. So to say that maybe what we spent in 1990 of and I'm just giving an example of seniors. I'm not talking about the rest of California. From three point one million seniors to now five point seven million seniors, it's a different level of care that's required.

And so we need to make sure that, you know, I can I can see, you know, maybe newscasters, you know, doing their stories based upon limited data that they have? That's not necessarily an adequate way to review. The second thing I would point out is with the rise of AI, the types of jobs and the amount of money that people were making when I grew up has greatly diminished to people that we see today.

For example, if we've closed two refineries, some in my district where that was a place where people without a college education could have been incarcerated in the past. We're making over a $100,000.

Now we've lost several thousands of jobs where people were making a decent living, could start anew. We're able to provide homes for their families. Send their kids to school. Now, with those closures and us losing those jobs, we've actually lost that income. And there are now there are more people who are in need of services that Californians, that we in the state provide.

And then finally, to say we have a spending problem. We've all heard that term many times. We also need to make sure that we recall that some of the funding that we're doing now is making up for federal cuts, to programs that existed. Now we are backfilling. And, we're backfilling that in large part due to, tax cuts that were given for the wealthy.

So that's my comment on that. The second thing I want to start off is just for the public's knowledge to share with you our process. It's very important that you understand that we didn't just suddenly, you know, start talking about the budget, you know, a month or two ago. Our chairman, the pro tem, Limon, made a very concentrated effort starting back in January.

Where members, members here that you see and all Senate members had an opportunity to weigh in and say, what were the things that we found were important to them, important to the people in their districts?

And then we were able to prioritize what those items were based upon the number, of the senators who were there. And then that's how we kind of led our road map in our subcommittees. I happen to represent subcommitte five. That's how we then took that information. So I took the information based upon judiciary corrections, labor and transportation.

I took the feedback that we got in January, and then we began to have hearings. And out of those hearings came, the Senate plan, what we call the Senate plan is senators discuss what our priorities were and what we wanted to focus on.

So I just wanted the public to clearly understand that there has been work from January to where we are to mid June to make sure that the things that we've heard from the public all in our districts, were reflective as best as possible in the budget that was brought forward. And then collectively, I would say that we had no less than minimum 10 meetings to continually discuss over this six month period, those priorities, what were the positions of the administration and also in the assembly.

So, we didn't come here just by, you know, happenstance a month or two ago. We've been diligently working and doing our best to make sure that the budget that you see before you is not one that's perfect, But certainly is one that a lot of effort has been made to reflect Californians. And then with that, I'm gonna close with my general comments. More specifically regarding sub five and sub three. I'm not gonna go through, all the comments that I made in committee because I already made them for the record.

But I will highlight just on a couple points for the sense of timing of this committee and the public that's waiting to speak. One, I wanted to speak to the judgeships. There's a report, if anyone is, in request of it, dating back to November 22. And the title of that report is the need for the new judgeships in the superior court. And superior court. And, I just want to reiterate for the record that, I will hope I hope that the amount that is being allocated would have a greater focus on the Riverside and San Bernardino Counties as opposed to the existing formula.

Formulas are created, generally when we create an overall process, but formulas don't necessarily keep track of the accumulated problem. And as stated in the report, this funding greatly minimizes the gap. This was back in 2022 between the number of authorized judgeships and judicial need. So we have authorized judgeships of 26 that we are currently not funding. And in Riverside, there is a under judgeship of 2222 and San Bernardino, 30.

That's more than 50% of the needed judgeships. And many of those counties, 17, only are short one, two, three. But there are only three counties where they're actually in need of more than 10. And two of those are more than 20 in San Bernardino and Riverside. So as the chair and the pro tem move forward in finalizing, the negotiations based upon the plan that we're voting on today.

I hope there'll be a continued, effort to look at that. Not to eliminate the formula, but just for this first section of funding that we would consider that. The second thing I want to build on a comment of my colleague that I hope, for the public hospitals that we would really look at what is the definition of a public hospital. Because really a public hospital should be looking at what is the population you're serving, the number, and also the number of medical patients.

So a public hospital could be a hospital in a fairly affluent community, where it is being funded by their respective county and local UC. But maybe only 50% of their patients are medical. But then there are other public hospitals or private public hospitals where maybe they're serving 85% of medical.

Which means that they're not receiving a sufficient reimbursement, which then leads to them ultimately becoming distressed. So I hope we'll take a look at that. And then the final one is in, corrections with the rehabilitation grants.

There were, in committee, several programs were noted. Only a couple of them are actually line itemed in the budget. And I hope that we would consider the committee testimony of the others that were mentioned. And I'll provide them to the staff and to the chair. But to conclude my comments, I just want to say that, we've come a long way in our business.

They say an agreement is, when not everyone is happy. You know, some of what we get, we're happy. Some of we're not. But the goal is is that we work to balance the budget, that we increase our reserves, which the chairman has been very concerned about. And we deal with our priorities as best as possible of what we have.

And I'm here to attest as one of those sub chairs that tremendous effort was made to do that. And I thank you, chairman and also, senate Pro Tem Limon, for all of your work and look forward to continuing. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comments. We'll go to Senator Reyes and Senator Cabaldon is on deck.

Thank you, Mister Chair. As a member of this Senate Budget Committee and chair of budget subcommittee two, I'm proud to support the legislature's two-party budget agreement. AB 109 reflects months as noted by my colleague, months and months of hard work, as well as the commitment to protecting essential services and making principled finding decisions. Funding decisions that strengthen our communities. Our budget is not perfect and we know it.

But it is both responsible and makes key strategic investments that will benefit Californians. A couple of highlights that I want to include. $50,000,000 to the Victims of Crime Act or VOCA. This program maintains support for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. It's an issue I I'm proud to have championed in the past and I am glad that we are including $50,000,000 in this budget.

The other is ensuring that our counties have resources they need to help our most vulnerable residents keep food on the table and navigate federal changes to Medi Cal. It is clear from the comments from my colleagues that it is still not enough. Indigent care services are still needed in our counties. And what is happening now is putting our counties at financial loss and financial risk. We often hear about trickle down economics.

Well, it started with the HR 1. And all the loss to our state and specifically to those most vulnerable, those who most needed the benefits, the services, comes down to the state. We are now putting together our budget. Next, it's gonna trickle down. All these losses are trickling down to the county.

And finally, it's going to be our constituents. And most especially, and the ones who will will who will suffer from this the most are the indigent. I do want to bring specific attention to the legislature's investment of $20,000,000 in general fund support for new judgeships.

This is something that my colleague from sub one has mentioned. This is support for new judgeships and it'll grow to 44,000,000 and ongoing, which will improve access to justice for communities across California including the Inland Empire.

The Inland Empire continues to face some of the highest court workload pressure in California. San Bernardino County serves 2,200,000 residents but still faces a shortage as mentioned. And we're down to 26 judgeships with judicial officers handling caseloads about 18% higher than the average across the state. This investment recognizes a simple simple reality. Justice delayed is justice denied.

And for so many, not only in the Inland Inland Empire, but in other counties in the state of California where they have they are short judges and their caseload is higher. It has been a reality that justice delayed was justice denied. I do want to express my sincere appreciation to our budget chair, specifically for for her leadership in this regard. To sub sub budget chair, five for her leadership.

But I also want to appreciate the Senate and Assembly leadership for answering the call to strengthen access to justice, particularly those who have who have championed this, including the Inland Empire Caucus.

I do urge the administration to work with the legislature and approve these important investments. Now as to g g r f, this is one of those areas that fell under my committee sub two. It's not lost on me that some issues remain unresolved in GGRF. Couple of week weeks ago, CARB voted to approve amendments to the cap and invest program that will significantly cut the amount of funding available for g g r f. I remain very concerned about the impact of CARB's decision.

To be clear, this rule making will lead to funding reduction to critical transit, affordable housing, air quality, wildfire mitigation, and safe drinking water programs. Given these changes, it is important that the legislature revisit the framework of last year's cap and invest deal to ensure legislative priorities are properly funded.

I do want to thank our pro tem, Senator Limon, our budget chair, Senator Laird for their, my goodness, their leadership, but their their their countless hours and into the wee hours of the night, to put together something that is incredibly important and to address the issues that have been that have been brought up by our caucus members. And to putting together a budget in its entirety, and then negotiating it with the assembly. I do look forward to further discussions with the administration.

I will be supporting AB 109. I look forward to the revenue issues that are going to be brought up once we get to review those. With that, I will yield back. Mister chair.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. We'll move to Senator Cabaldon and Senator Choi is on deck.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Budgeting is, it is by definition painful and hard. It is the one one part of the work that we do here that is constrained. That is necessarily involves a million trade offs, which is why I this is my I forget how many this is my twelfth state budget I think I've been involved in both either as a staff or now as a member or in the administration, plus 23 budgets in city hall where I served previously. Now, basically, the same flow.

The budget proposal gets announced in January, and we all say we hate this, but it's a important start. Then we pass our version of the budget and we say, here's a budget we really like. Then we have the two the agreement between the Senate and the assembly. Now we have a budget that we kind of like. And then we will come back for the final budget, which will be a budget we can barely stomach.

And then we'll do it all over again. That is the nature of of budgeting and and the budget in the end will reflect what no one would have written as a budget. Not a single person, including the governor, including all of the legislative leadership. So understanding this year is, has felt different.

And I should say the budgeting is hard even when we have what feels like unlimited money because then we have to rely on ourselves to not make commitments that we can't keep and promises that we can't keep in the future.

And it can be seductive. You know, I get to I often tell you my district, I know we say it or hear all the time, I'm a Senator for the fourth largest economy in the world. And people say, well, then why can't we just do why can't we meet all of the needs in in California?

Well, we never have been able to do that, but I think this year is particularly challenging because, the first largest economy in the world through HR 1, the one big awful bill, is eviscerating support for basic needs in California. Medi Cal being Medi Cal, Cali Cali's food and health care being on top of the list.

And although we we California is big and powerful and potent, we are not bigger and more powerful or richer than the entire nation, the entire country. And so when Congress and the White House take those actions, they have consequences. And the people of California do not have the ability to make them all go away. And so I deeply, you know, I'm scared for what's going to be happening in my, in the communities that I represent.

As h as more and more of the provisions of HR 1 kick in and we see the the carnage that that that that legislation is is is causing and will cause in our communities especially for those that are the most at risk.

But let's be clear, that's not this budget. That is that is entirely 100% at the feet of the White House and and the Congress for passing that in the first place. And and so I appreciate the work that's been done by the administration and by our leadership and especially by the the budgets of committees to try to do everything that we can. We could spend 100% of the California state budget on medical. It would not be hard.

We could spend 100% of the budget on K-12 education. It would not be challenging. I I could make that up right now. I mean, that that our but but we we can't do that because we also have to we also have other critical services for the people of California. The basic governance of have maintaining, highway patrol and and prisons, but also parks and forests and everything else that the people of California have chosen through their democratic processes and their taxes.

And so we we do have to have A Budget that balances. This budget, I I said, this is the round where we normally say I like I kinda like this one. I am I am very happy to support AB 109 today. Given the constraints that we're facing from the Federal Government and the challenges that took of our own structural deficit, this document, this proposal, goes a long way towards addressing some critical concerns and needs that we have in this state.

We have to deal with the structural deficit. Otherwise, we will be faced with more and more of these challenges that will be even more wrenching and heart and heartbreaking. And I'm very grateful that the the president Pro Tem and the budget chairs and the speaker and, also the governor and his proposal have all prioritized the need for a fiscally responsible budget. And this this goes a long way in accomplishing that.

The deferrals on the on some of the even more painful cuts to to to health care services for the poorest of Californians, Those those deferrals are important, and very much appreciate the leadership that's been undertaken there. And then for the the, budgets of committee four that I happen to serve on and just on behalf of Senator Hurtado to thank her and the vice chair Senator Nilo, and my colleague to my to my left.

I mean, we've we've worked really hard to to assure that there are there are, real investments in affordable housing and in preventing and ending homelessness in the state. And this budget, this budget proposal goes a long way towards assuring that we can build tens of thousands of housing units that are already in the queue for affordable housing in California that have everything that they need except for the last few dollars. This budget is a strong statement but also a strong investment in order to unlock that.

So this isn't exactly the budget that I would write. I know it's that's true for the budget chair as well. But it advances the critical goals and values that we've been articulating all year long in our budget subcommittees and in the House. Very much appreciate the leadership of the chair and of the of our own leadership in order to advance this. And I and also hope that as we go to take this next step, that the administration sees the the the work that we've been doing together on on on structural on the structural deficit.

I also wanna say, I I know we're not voting on the trailers, but the administration's proposals, around around revenues and trying to address the structural deficit from both the spending and a revenue perspective. However, we deal with the details. I'm very appreciative that the administration is is trying to meet us, you know, meet us at the table on that. Look forward to those cap happening as well.

But now now our task is to assure that if once this once this measure passes both houses that that we are able to bring the bring the governor on board and be able to to craft a budget that while never perfect represents a strong a strong effort to try to assure that we're protecting people everywhere that we can, that we're keeping California solvent to stand up and find another day. Thanks, mister chair.

Thank you very much. Senator Choi and Senator Seyarto is on deck. And I have two more people.

Thank you, chair. I would just

excuse me for a Sec. Just remind committee members, we have to take public testimony and I'm told there's 50 people in the hallway that wanna give public testimony. So just to keep that in mind time wise. Okay.

I wanna make it short. As one of the only four minority Republican committee member members. I need to make my position known on this budget that is being proposed. The super majority claims that this budget is balanced, but that claim is simply not true. This budget assumes revenues that are approximately $5,000,000,000 higher than previous projections and relies on future tax increases that will make California even less affordable and the families, affordable for the families and the businesses.

Rather than providing certainty, this budget leaves significant decisions unsolved. It is an incomplete baseline budget with the major policy and the funding details still to be negotiated. Californians deserve a transparent budget process. Unfortunately, this year's process has fallen short of that standard. As a member of a budget committee, budget subcommittee number two, on resources, environmental protection, and, energy, I was, unable to support the several cap and investment, cap and invest, proposed proposals, because, critical funding allocations, and the policy decisions had not yet been finalized.

Even though my understanding is that separate legislation is still being circulated to revise portions of the agreement before us today. That raises serious questions about whether legislators and the public have a complete picture of the budget they are being asked to approve. In budget subcommittee number two, we examined the claims that the oil refiners were engaging in price gouging and contributing to California's high gasoline prices. Think about it. Is that true?

The evidence presented showed that California's gasoline prices are driven largely by factors unique to our state, including stricter regulatory requirements, limited refinery capacity, and higher operating costs due to the all kinds of regulations. Given those realities, it is difficult to justify spending additional taxpayer dollars on new oversight and regulatory structures when state taxes, fees, and regulatory policies are already major contributors to the cost burden Californians face at the pan at the pump. So therefore, I won't be able to support this bill.

Thank you very much for your comments. Go to Senator Seyarto and Senator Archuleta is on deck.

Thank you very much. And I'll try to zip through this because some of the points have already been made. There are some good parts of this bill, certainly. The distressed hostile loan program is supportable. The additional 50,000,000 for prop 36, well, it falls way short of what is needed.

Certainly, anything towards that end is supportable. The $3,600,000,000 for court construction and $20,000,000 for new judgeships. I just wanna thank my colleague on sub five, for her collaboration in addressing this. We've been trying to address it for the last five years that I've been up here. And, and and in order for all of these other programs and all of these other bills and the justice efforts that have been taken, over the last few years, the the key component to that is the process.

And the process can't be done. We can't we have 85,000 people in that are backlogged trying to get their their their their court hearings retried because of some of the new legislation that we've passed. We have no way of getting that through without the people. So that is another thing that is certainly supportable. The HAPP funding.

$900,000,000 for HAPP funding. That's another thing that's very supportable. One of the things that we've been able to see now is that there are some communities that are very successful with this $900,000,000 and some that are not. And what we need to do is make sure that the ones that are not are modeling more of what the successful ones are doing so that we are not wasting any of that money.

So now that we have track records, it's important for us to build on the positives and, and correct the ones that aren't doing as well. But there are a lot of cons to this. Number one, it relies on new taxes. People are taxed out, and a lot of those taxes fall on businesses. And it's not just businesses. When businesses are taxed, they have to raise prices in order to cover their losses or or their taxes as well.

So in a in an era where we're talking about trying to decrease the cost of living, all of what we're doing seems to be increasing the cost of living. One of the things that sticks in my craw is the $225,000,000 more to help the Department of Transportation, Caltrans, achieve the goal of becoming the greenest fleet in the nation. That's not their goal. Their goal is to, build roads and infrastructure so that we can get around.

And when we're spending 225,000,000,000 million more dollars, this is in addition to the billions that they've already the billion that they've already spent.

To so they could buy equipment that is all electric, that is three times as expensive, that wears out in half the time, so that they can build us some roads. We have interchanges, we have roadways, we have dangerous highways out there that this $225,000,000 can fix. They have a program for replacing their equipment. Their their equipment should be replaced with reasonably priced equipment. And if they can make it green, that's great.

If they can, it can't. But having that is our goal for Caltrans, the cleanest fleet in the nation, when we're forty ninth in building roads or or and maintaining the roads that we have, that's ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous. The 1,900,000 seems pretty trivial. But when you start thinking of all things that aren't being funded, $1,900,000 for eight new positions for the CEC to continue efforts for the minimum supply requirements on gasoline refineries, and none of these things have really done anything for the last few years here.

We've had bill after bill trying to hammer the the, refineries. All it's really d1 is reduce the amount of refineries in California. So that's something else that we're wasting m1y on. So there's several other things. I did wanna get to the the HR 1 comments a little bit.

I have a question for the department for the administration in regards to the Health and Human Services budget. Is the Federal Government, are they how much are they decreasing this year in our Health and Human Services, department that our budget that, is causing the consternation of all of my colleagues here? What's the decrease in the amount?

Laura Ayala, Department of Finance. I can speak specifically to the Department of Health Care Services, which administers Medi Cal, not all of the Health and Human Services departments. But due to HR 1, we're losing we're losing 11,000,000,000 by 2930.

2930.

But this year alone, we have a a budget that is $14,000,000,000 more that the Federal Government is putting into health and human services. Is that correct?

That is well, we're there's a every state has a specified federal match. And yes, if we spend more for certain services, then we are able to draw down federal funds. And, that includes like the MCO tax and other, other, programs that we have that draw down federal funds. So yes, our general fund budget has been increasing and so our federal funds.

So the Federal Government has increased the amount of money going into our general fund by $14,000,000,000.

Yes. So it's

not exactly what I would call a cut.

It's not a percentage increase. Our general fund spending has increased, so then the federal match increases as well. It's not that they're investing more.

Right. So the 1,300,000 people that are going to lose coverage out of the 14,000,000,000 or million people that we have on coverage right now, who are those folks? Are they strictly the people that fall into the category of single with no dependents, able-bodied people that are supposed to have work or volunteer or education requirements as a as a as a means for them to have Medi Cal? Is that where is that all of them?

The 1 point three million individuals, to clarify, it's forty four thousand are estimated in to lose medical in 26-27 and then by 2930, 1 point up to 1 point three million. And that includes individuals that are subject to the HR the new HR 1 requirements, which are the work and community engagement and the redeterminations. Other eligibility redeterminations are every six months. And that could include disenrolling for multiple reasons. Right.

It could include. There's a lot of different reasons. And a lot of it is the inaction by people who are want to be eligible and just don't follow through. And if they need help, they can get some help. But you cannot blame the system for saying, hey, we need here here's what you need to do to be able to get these.

It's not making them uneligible. It's making it so that they have to show that they are eligible. And and I don't know that that's too much to ask for our California tax payers especially, who are footing a tremendous bill. Medi Cal cost there 228 $23,000,000,000 a year. That's how much that's a lot, folks.

So when we were talking earlier a little bit about that, that's a lot of money. And we should be able to manage something within there. But we should also be able to manage the part where we hold people accountable and ensure that our money is not being wasted. Because that's why we are raising taxes, because we have no accountability. California falls way short in accountability.

And, so, those type of things are the things that concern me. Yes, I want people to be able to get care that they are eligible for. But HR 1 also did increase our SALT limit, which was a big issue with everybody. So there's one good thing that my colleagues failed to mention, is that our your salt, increase is going up from 10, thousand dollars to $40,000. So, yeah, it is.

That that's part of your taxes. Like, my wife does taxes. So, there are a lot of people rejoicing about that, because it puts a little bit more money in their pockets. And that was not resolved. That was done during the first administration with the current administration, and that was not resolved during the last four years.

So that's something that it is doing that as well. And that does add money into people's pockets. So it's not all bad, just like this budget isn't all bad. But there are too many bad parts of it. One other thing I wanted to mention.

In the budget, you will find a lot of examples of stuff that we should not be spending money on in place of other things. One of those is $5,000,000 that we're we're giving to the students of UCLA so they can do a project which is going around The United States suing other governments, over their election stuff, over voter integrity or whatever it is. If they wanna do that, that's great. Their parents can administer they they can donate money to a a a fund for that.

But in place of that, we have, to my colleague's comment earlier about our our senior population, we have a senior center down in in at Riverside that is in dire need of of upgrading their facility.

It's fallen down around them. They can't they can't help all the seniors that they're supposed to be helping. They need $3,000,000, but instead we're gonna spend $5,000,000 to students at UCLA so they can run around suing people in The United States. That's absurd. That is an absurd waste of our money.

So those are the kind of things that stick in our craw, stick in my craw, sticks in the people's that I represent's craw.

And and as long as those type of things keep showing up in this budget, it makes it very hard to support this budget even though we have some really good stuff in there too. So, it's it's, it's one of those things that makes the budget not supportable. It makes it seem like we don't wanna support anything and that's wrong. What we don't support is the stuff that I just went over. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Senator Archuleta, Senator Durazo's

Let me begin on a positive note that I do support AB 109 and I support the chair and and, chair Gabriel and the work he's done in all the subcommittees that, as we heard, Senator Richardson point out the intense background that we had to do and and looking at every single item that was on the budget and trying to ascertain, which community needs the help. And what we've come up with is communities across the state of California need help.

Not Republican communities, not Democratic communities, all communities. And this budget reflects that. We've tried to look at education.

We've tried to look at housing. We've tried to look at so many things in our hospitals. And we've done that for all the people in California. And I think what happens is the negative that we hear is that it seems to be one-sided. It is not.

You can't tell me that in Orange County there isn't a need as well as South Central, as well as parts of San Diego. It is across the state. This budget reflects that. And on some budget budget one that I'm in, I'm so proud of the fact that we've taken care of our educational system and our our young people, k through 12 especially. And we've looked at some of the schools that need help, and we have listened to the deferred maintenance that's out there.

And that's why there's $4,000,000 for that deferred maintenance. $20,000,000 to carry over our federal participation for adult education to bring in the parents and some of the others that need to be provided help and education. And, of course, the '98 funding budget 90 on the the '98, proposition 98 funding that we're gonna do and also 5,000,000 for Save the Children. But going over into our protective services for the child protection, $20,000,000 there, it is necessary. $50,000,000 for home safe programs.

We are trying to go across the board to help so many communities across. So remember this, it is the clean air, the environment, the water, the work we do with Caltrans, keeping our roads safe across the the state of California to maintain our national guard, our military, our reserves. There's so many things that we do and, of course, our law enforcement, our nurses, and so on.

We've done that, and I'm so proud that of the work we've done on AB 109, and I certainly support it and would like to move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you very much. Senator Durazo, Senator Perez is on deck.

Thank you. Mister Cherry, you mentioned something, I think, on a previous question about, AB 177. You say that it's, I don't know. I don't mean I didn't know that I was this question was gonna come up, but, that this budget assumes revenue, from AB 177. So it's hard for me to understand how we're asking questions about one zero nine because but not ask questions about one seventy seven if it assumes one seventy seven is part of the budget.

So somebody could explain that.

We have a three party agreement on the revenues. They're not eligible till 11:00 tonight and I think the assembly might be voting on it tonight. So we will be having a hearing in the next couple of days and hope to vote on it on Thursday.

Okay. But we don't but it's not part of this conversation?

This it's not part of this conversation. It'll have its separate conversation but this budget presumes the revenue.

Okay. But we weren't given the information about AB 177, but it presumes

I can We'll have the information before we hear AB 177 later in the week.

Okay. It doesn't feel right if that's such a if that's an important part of approving this budget, but I won't I won't I won't push that, but it just doesn't feel like if it's part of the conversation why we didn't have a presentation on it. I I just wanna end by just the way I feel is this budget is saving money by removing poor people from medical coverage. And it builds those savings into the baseline and creates no mechanism for restoration.

Meanwhile, it could be, could be not some version of employers who got huge tax cuts through HR 1, they get to wait I don't know I don't even know how that if and how that something like that's gonna happen.

But, low paid workers remain on state subsidized, care. So they're very strong conflicting issues here. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And and just to note, somebody pointed out to me that one seventy seven is the fair share thing that has no revenue in it. So we'll have multiple bills that come. The 177 on fair share and the one on the revenues. Thank you for your comments.

We'll go to Senator Perez and Senator Ochoa Boghe is on deck.

Thank you, mister chair. You know, I I just wanna note I I think, there's been so much work that's been put into this budget process and I first I want to thank Chair Laird and all of the other budget sub chair members. This has, been a very participatory process, and I've really appreciated that. And we've done quite a bit of work here.

The number of investments that we've made towards universal school meals, you know, making sure that we are, increasing the amount of financial aid that's being offered to our college students, increasing the amount of enrollment funding that we're providing to community college students. You know,

these are huge investments in college students. You know, these are huge investments in education or k through 12 space, as well as in our higher education institutions. And I think that that's a huge, huge positive. In addition to that, I I wanna make sure that I highlight I know this is going to be something that we'll end up further discussing next year, which is the fair share from big corporations at AP one seventy seven. And, you know, it's significant that we're considering a proposal like this.

I think I've heard across the board, you know, from my constituents, certainly as I talk with them as well as Californians, that, you know, there is a feeling and a sense, and a frustration around the growing income inequality in this country and the fact that it feels as though, you know, corporations are never forced to pay their fair share.

And, you know, this is a proposal that is actually looking at going after those corporations that have more than two fifty employees that are not providing them with health care coverage. This has long been an issue across the country, and we know that it is, and, you know, really forcing companies to have to reconcile with this. So I'm very happy that this was included as a proposal.

I know that this is something that many members of the Senate have been talking about, as well as members of the Assembly, and really just wanna give a shout out to, so many of the progressive legislators in this body that have been pushing for this issue, and that we are now going to be considering such a proposal.

I think that's very significant, and really proud of our House for leading that. In addition to that, I am also really proud of the investments I think that we've made to respond to what the Trump administration is doing. We have put millions of dollars now in allocating that towards our dreamers resource centers. This is something, that's really critical and important. We have dreamers resource centers located at our k through 12 institutions, our community college campuses.

And these locations provide important resources to our, not just undocumented students, but to mixed status families. And it's really critical that we meet those needs during a time period where there is so much uncertainty for these families. And that kind of investment is really going to meet those students and their families where they're at. And so I I just really wanna thank everybody, all of the partners who have pushed on this. There are a tremendous amount of, investments in here that really meet the moment.

But I also think, really seek to make sure that we're balancing our budget. So, again, thank you to Chair Laird. Thank you to our pro tem, and, happy to be voting aye on this.

Thank you very much for your comments. We're gonna go to Senator ochoa Bogh and then Senator Nilo is on deck.

Thank you, mister chair. Would like to publicly thank our chair, Senator Laird, and our vice chair, Senator Nilo, along with the other chairs of the committees. I especially wanna highlight Senator Richardson and her lead on the court ships and judgeships and, courtships. The court houses and the ability to fund, both the maintenance and the building and the and courtships.

Oh, that's highlight, you know. That's right. That's right. Everyone's on

their own.

I'll sign up for that.

Sorry. I'm sorry. Keep going. That's alright. But but yes, you're actually right.

So for court houses and the judge shifts in in San Martin Dina, Versed County. I so so deeply appreciate your your your help and your advocacy on that end ma'am. I also would like to just highlight and really thank my my chair for or in education committee as well as my other member, our newest member there with Senator Chuleta there. But I I really I'm so grateful for the investments in education and prioritizing education in our state, for many of the programs that we have.

And then we're not gonna go into the details because there's a lot.

And I I'm just grateful that I get to sit in this committee where, the three of us align so much. We have so much more in common than not when it comes to our educational funding priorities. So thank you to both of you for for your advocacy.

I do have a question with regards to, oh, I do wanna highlight also, you know, when we talk about transparency and accountability and and and funding and so forth, how, You know, as as the super minority in in in in in in the legislature, we often talk about the fact that not everything is always as always as transparent as as we think you would like to be. I just wanted to highlight two key things that in education we did not see, at all.

We did not talk about it. We did not, I don't even know how this came into our our budget here as a priority. But I do wanna talk about, you know, when we talk about transparency, these are kind of examples where we don't see what is how something is deliberated and added on to our budget including a $5,000,000 for UCLA's voting rights project. And a 1 and a half million dollars to my school, UC Santa Barbara's Blum Center on Poverty, Inequality and Democracy.

We have an opportunity to to discuss these investments.

I'm curious to know how we how these were prioritized, and how they came into our budget. Because that is, you know, we do deserve a little bit of transparency as to how this this came to be. So those are like two two items I would like to be addressed. And and another item has to do with the two one one, $2,000,000 budget request. During recent emergencies, including wildfire response and public, The public has been directed to call 211 for information and services.

If the state is relying on a system operationally, don't we think that there should be some allocation investment into the system? Also, as California prepares for federal changes affecting health and social services access due to HR 1, what is the state's role for resource navigation services like two one one? And has that increased that increased demand been accounted for? And lastly, the third part on this question is we're hearing that multiple counties may face reductions or closures in two one one service absent additional support.

What is the state's plan to ensure that there is equitable statewide access to live non emergency support and mitigating impacts to the 911 system if funding is not, provided.

So those are, two items that I would love to to hear a little bit of feedback on. And lastly, thank you to Senator Blake Spear for prop 36 comments. Online with that, on that end. So thank you so much for everyone involved in these conversations.

Thank you very much. We're gonna go to, Senator Nilo and I have Senator Richardson for one last comment after that.

Part of my comments, have to do with the comments of Senator Richardson that took exception to Fareed's take and my take on Fareed's take. I won't do a point by point counter on that. That's way too much time. Just to support the overall notion, I would point to the ledge analyst report that came out just before the May revise referring to budget decisions of the past eight years or so, particularly in our high surplus years. In hindsight, underlying costs and discretionary choices were not affordable.

In retrospect, the state could not afford to sustain its existing services while funding the chosen suite of spending expansions and new spending. In other words, the structural deficit was really predetermined. Those are not the LA words, but I think that's a reasonable, conclusion from that. Two other clarifications, with regard to Senator Smallwood Cuevas' concern about families. I would share that concern except that the the Medi Cal changes by HR 1 requires work and voluntary requirements for able-bodied adults with no children.

That's not families. It could be a couple but able-bodied adults and no families. So the result is not going to be quite as severe as perhaps is concerned. And this budget does allocate a couple $100,000,000 as I understand it, which I agree with, to counties to provide resources to help those people document that work and volunteer requirement. And also with regard to the CalFresh CalFresh program, the reason that's being done is because California has a sky high error rate.

I think the highest in the country. And that has been the case for a few years and really nothing's been done about it. So maybe now we have an impetus to correct that extremely high error rate, with regard to the CalFresh program and perhaps avoid the cuts in future years. The two other comments quickly I agree with regard regard to POP 36. There is still woefully inadequate funding, to for that initiative, particularly, substance abuse and, and mental health care.

And very importantly, there is still nothing done with regard to the unemployment insurance debt and not even an indication of a path forward to do something about which is going to be a horrible drag on the employers of our state who are also looking at, some potentially disproportionate, cost, as we debate the so called fair share, health care, issue. And I'm sure additional facts will come out about that.

But given that we have an extremely weak labor market, particularly in the private sector, and these additional costs being placed on adding employees is a severe challenge.

Thank you very much. And then Senator Richardson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly. Several members have mentioned prop 36, which falls within, sub five. I just wanted to say for the record that we did have a joint hearing of, public safety last year.

Approximately just for the record, nine thou it's my understanding, roughly about 9,000 cases were filed as related to Prop 36 of that which approximately 500 something, ended up being incarcerated. And through the testimonies we received in committee, there was not a large upswell of stating that the funds were not sufficient. Funds were not sufficient in relation to court operations, most certainly. But specific to Prop 36, no.

But we will, I will make a commitment to the members of this committee, to get you updated numbers of what has been the impact of Prop 36 and in relation to overall cases.

And but it's our understanding, those resources allocated in this budget would be adequate. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That completes my list of member comments and we are going to move to public testimony. Just beforehand, let me make two quick comments. One is is that once again, just in case anybody was out of the room, we expect that that we will have a committee hearing and a floor vote on the revenue bills before the end of the week. And there was also concern about hospitals and we have an additional almost $400,000,000 over the May revise on hospitals in this budget.

We're trying to address it. Now to public comment, if I I originally thought I was gonna limit to a minute and if I limit it to a minute, it would take us to our floor session and we can't do that. So I'm going to limit the the public comment. We're gonna cut it off if it's still going at 01:00. We ask that you you limit yourself to a minute.

If you can limit yourself to less, it'll allow other people to be able to talk. If you go to a minute, I will let you know and move on to the next person. So please identify yourself and welcome to the committee. We're gonna begin public comment.

Thank you. Good morning.

Oh, is this is this okay?

Alright. Alright. Good morning. I'm Kate Ladisch, the president of

the California IHSS Consumer Alliance, chair

of the Yolo County IHSS Advisory Committee, member of the long term services and supports coalition, and a Medi Cal and IHSS beneficiary. Medi Cal and IHSS are life saving programs. The governor's proposed cuts would result in people like Christy Madden and Cindy So to of LA County, Nuni Mata of Yolo County, and Mark Gordon of Butte County having diminished access to care or losing it entirely, putting them at significant risk of for institutionalization or homelessness or even death.

In that context, I extend heartfelt thanks for rejecting the governor's harmful proposed cuts to HSS. We appreciate that the legislature rejected the governor's proposal for the $2,000 asset limit, although we're troubled by the recurrent inequitable targeting of older adults and people with disabilities, and would like to continue working with the legislature next year in reforming this.

We support the legislature's common sense fair share proposal, and we thank you for including the Be Home Soon California proposal in the, legislative budget agreement, and I respectfully support, a b respectfully request support for a B109. Thank you.

Thank you very much. You're a minute on the dot. Right. Welcome.

Hello, everyone. My name is. Hi, everyone. My name is Mohamed Rashid, and I am from the LTSS Coalition. We appreciate the legislator rejected the governor proposal on the 2,000 asset limit, and we would like to continue working with the legislator next year on reforming this inequitable policy that targets older adults and people with disabilities. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. Welcome to the speaker.

Hello. My name is John Cooper, and I am the vice chair of the Yolo County IHSS Advisory Committee. And I'd like to thank you for moving to preserve the current level of in home support services and other Medi Cal programs. The assets allowed my physically disabled daughter to independently attend and graduate from the University of California, Berkeley. I salute the attention being paid to the Be Home Soon California and fair share proposals and rejection of the $2,000 asset limit. Again, on behalf of my family and many, many other families, thank you for your attention.

Thank you very much. Next speaker.

Good morning. My name is Kalud Rashid. I'm from Stanislaus County. I'm from the LTSS For All Coalition, and I would like to thank the we would like to appreciate and thank the legislator for rejecting the governor's proposal on the $2,000 asset limit. We would like to continue working on the ledge with the legislator next year on reforming this inequitable policy that targets older adults and people with disabilities. I truly thank you all for your work since January. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Mister chair, Chris Micheli on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. AB 109 is premised on a number of tax increases to which we are opposed in 122 and 176 of the trailer bills. They have been done in the past. If you have to do them, make them temporary, not permanent. And also wanted to be sure that, as the Vice Chair has noted, the corporate sorry.

The business community has been paying $1.6 billion annually to repay that debt to the UI fund. Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the committee. My name is Christine O'Keefe. I have cerebral palsy, use a wheelchair, and use AAC when giving longer speeches. I work as an AAC mentor at Tech, helping people with disabilities communicate and advocate for themselves. Thank you for rejecting many of the governor's harmful proposals to cut this.

These decisions protect the services that allow people like me to live independently. IS is essential. My caregivers help me with daily tasks that I cannot do on my own because of my disability. Without IS, I would not be able to live safely in my home or continue working and serving my community. Because of IS and Medi Cal, I have lived independently since I was 24 years old and earned my associate degree after twenty years of hard work.

Please continue to protect us and Medi Cal so people with disabilities can live with dignity, independence, and opportunity. Thank you for your time and for supporting California's disability community.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your comments. Next speaker, welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I wanna begin by thanking the Black Caucus and the legislature for funding the sickle cell centers for excellence. Many may not know that sickle cell warriors are disproportionately black and among the most medically vulnerable and complex populations, especially when they reach young adulthood. Social determinants of health, including poverty, lack of access, transportation, homelessness, cultural and language barriers, racism and discrimination exacerbate the challenges for both children and adults.

My name is Carmen-Nicole Cox. I'm here on behalf of Cayenne Wellness Center, a statewide community based organization serving Californians living with sickle cell. We wanna thank Senator Perez for championing Cayenne's urgent budget request because while clinical treatment is essential alone, it will not ensure warrior survival. A sickle cell warrior cannot benefit from a center if it cannot if they cannot get to the appointment or have no emergency funds to prevent eviction after missing work during crisis.

All evidence shows that a warrior in crisis needs the benefit of point of care advocacy during ER visits just to have their pain believed and treated. Along with mental health counseling, these are such just.

Thank you very much. You've reached a minute. We appreciate your comments.

I appreciate you, sir.

Yeah. Okay. Next speaker. Welcome.

Welcome.

Good afternoon. Grace Glaser on behalf of the California Partnership End Domestic Violence. I wanna thank the Senate budget for including 50,000,000 to backfill the loss in Federal Victims of Crime Act, Boca funding, as well as the recommendation for 12.5 million for trauma recover recovery centers, and the recommendation to close an additional prison. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you. Danica Rodarmel from Holt Consulting with a quick few notes of gratitude, for our champions and supporters, including Senator Richardson, Senator Smallwood Cuevas, Senator Durazo for the inclusion of the Jails to Jobs workforce development program on behalf of Vera California.

Also, on behalf of Local one forty eight, the LA Public Defenders Union for the inclusion of the continued funding for the research partnership between the California Policy Lab and the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code, and finally, on behalf of Transformative Programming Works and Group Training Institute for the inclusion of the right grant funding. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Vanessa Cajina on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physician. We thank you for your hard work to preserve access to the state's most vulnerable members in mitigating some of the harm of HR 1. We also appreciate continued dialogue on the menopause trailer bill language and adoption of placeholder trailer bill that we, as we proceed. On talks on the MCO, we hope to ensure that the will of the voters on Prop 35 is preserved.

Then, on behalf of the Promotoras de Division y Compromiso, we hope to see the support that CBOs need to keep Californians enrolled in Medi Cal due to the cuts to HR 1 and on on behalf of CalPace. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Good morning. Mark Farouk on behalf of California Hospital Association. First, just wanted to thank the, but, the

And you can pull the mic up toward you. Yeah. Thanks.

Again, Mark Farouk on behalf of California Hospital Association. We wanna thank the legislature for inclusion of the funding for distressed hospitals. I wanna note, and I'll save comments for when these items come up later, but just a few notes on the MCO tax proposal. We are opposed to that and concerned about how that may redirect funding from the very hospitals that need it. Also, concerns related to the software tax proposal given that health care providers are heavy users of medical, software.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, Kathy Mossburg on behalf of the local health plans. Want to thank Senator Durazo for her comments about the move of the UIS population for fee for service. The local health plans do have an alternate proposal that we put forward. We wanna thank the legislature for leaving us room to discuss this with, the administration as we move forward to a final budget.

Some of the critical care services that will be lost will be specialty care, cancer treatment, dialysis, all of those things that we know fee for service cannot create a network for and doesn't have the money to fund.

So we really thank you for your time and we'll keep you posted on those discussions.

Thank you very much.

Mister Chair and Members, Michael Pimentel here on behalf of the California Transit Association as well as a coalition representing 60 transportation housing, local government, environmental labor, business and disability rights groups urging you to protect the tier three GGRF programs. We appreciate that included within AB 109 is placeholder language to suggest revisiting and a reconsideration of SBA 40. We encourage you to move forward with that process and look forward to leaning into that ourselves. To that end, we've submitted a letter on Wednesday.

We've updated it and resubmitted it today with more details on our priorities. And then finally, for the California Transit Association, I do want to urge the appropriation of $230,000,000 for the ZE TCP zero emission transit capital program planned for investment in fiscal year twenty six twenty seven. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Hi. Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties. CSAC really values the partnership of the and the commitment to prioritizing resources to support counties and delivering services that communities rely on. We're supportive of many elements in the legislative budget agreement on HR 1. Really appreciate the investments that will help counties protect the safety net.

This includes around $450 million for county eligibility work that'll help people keep Medi Cal and Cal fresh, a $125,000,000 for the creation of an alternative to Inogen Care with an emergency only Medi Cal program, and, of course, $250 million for public hospitals. CSAC is also supportive of the $190 million for the distressed hospital loan program. Grateful for the rejection of the proposed IHS cost shift. I'm really appreciative of the senator's leadership on HAPP and providing additional funding, getting up to 900,000,000 in this current year.

I do continue to support the earlier Senate action for intent language for a billion in the following year.

And then finally, on prop 36, we greatly appreciate the legislature recognizing the ongoing challenges that counties have in delivering these needed services and, highlight just continued investments for ongoing and sustainable investments that'll help, across multiple county departments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Mister Chair, Member, Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions. We wanted to thank this body for their work on the corporate fair share proposal. It's very hard to have any conversation about the deep cuts to the medical program and the Health Care Safety net without asking and identifying which corporations have workers that are on medical, so they are not providing affordable health care and are paying wages low enough that workers qualify for the program. So we thank you for your work on that.

We support all of the revenue proposals including the software as a service tax, which we think is a very important modernization of the tax system. And we also want to thank you for the $9 million for, the California workers rights enforcement grant program. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Mister chair, Brendan Repicky on behalf of Monterey Salinas Transit District, Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, Caltrain, San Mateo County Transit District, Solano County Transit, San Francisco Bay Ferry, San Joaquin RTD, Sunline Transit, County Connection, and Via Transportation. Thanks for letting me get all those out.

It's so tempting to just say thank you very much after your list.

Mister Sharpe, appreciate you acknowledging our concerns around GGRF expenditures as you finalize GGRF expenditures as that you fully fund the tier three programs and restore funding for the SB 125 program. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Chair Laird, Members, Andrew Shane on behalf of the County Welfare Directors Association. In appreciation for the original Senate plan and the continued investments in the two party agreement, as well as the comments by so many senators today on the critical nature of our county eligibility workers, and urge you to fight for the full funding, the $215 million for Medi Cal and 245 for CalFresh, because we don't have that investment.

We won't have the workers needed to mitigate, the hunger and health care crisis that we are seeing play out, even in states like Massachusetts that want to do the right thing. As well, appreciation for the rejection of cuts to APS and IHSS, as well as the asset limit. And I'll just end by noting that there is critically needed trailer bill language, CalFresh match waiver, county hold harmless, and to reject the DHS proposal on, county, performance measures.

We wanna restore the existing underlying, accountability structure that's much more effective. So we support AB 109 in the entire package. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Kelly Burks on behalf of the Urban Counties of California as well as the counties of Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Ventura, Riverside, Colusa, Plumas, and Alpine. Thank you for your HR 1 mitigation package for counties. Additionally, thank you for your actions on IHSS, APS, and the Behavioral Health Services Act revenue stabilization on behalf of the Center for Elders Independence. Thank you for your rejection of the PACE rate reduction and inclusion of level of care nurses.

On behalf of Lifelong, thank you for the delay of the PPS elimination.

And finally, on behalf of Diaper Banks, thank you for the $16.5 million and the recognition of the role the diaper banks play in the delivery of diapers to children of all ages. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Mister Chair and Members, I'm Erin Evans on behalf of the County of Santa Clara. We really appreciate the work of, the state and the two party agreement to mitigate the effects of the federal HR 1 cuts, especially as the county faces a $1 billion estimated annual impact. Specifically, we support the 250 million for public hospitals, funding for increased eligibility workload for both Medi Cal and CalFresh, and the $125 million alternative to indigent care for emergency services.

In addition, the county appreciates the rejection of the IHSS cost shift to counties for hours per case and we support nine the $900 million allocation for HAPP round seven. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Yeah. Peter Hansel here on behalf of AARP California and its 3.2 million members. And we wanna thank the Assembly and the Senate for developing a budget that avoids many of the harmful cuts and the governors may revise. Specifically, we do support rejecting the proposed draconian $2,000 asset limit proposal. We support rejecting the increase in the age for adult protective services, as contained in the May revise.

We also support rejecting the proposed rate caps for the PACE providers, again, provided for in your framework address. We appreciate the legislature's, commitment to resetting the resetting the asset limit at $21,000 effective next year and indexing it to inflation. We think that's a helpful start in the right direction. Just in closing, I wanna thank you for your work mitigating and rejecting these cuts and I urge your adoption of the legislative package.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm Laura Lane with the California Association of Public Hospitals. Thank you for including 250 million for public hospitals in the budget. It's an important first step as we face the unprecedented challenges that HR 1 brings.

When fully implemented, HR 1 will cost our systems nearly $3 billion annually, so we urge expanded and continued funding to stabilize our safety net. Also, we appreciate the delay in PPS rates. And finally, we look forward to continuing the conversations on the UIS transition for fee for service. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Michelle Gibbons with the County Health Executives Association of California representing local health departments. Want to express appreciation for the investments to maintain public health information technology systems and disease intervention specialists. Also, want to thank you for the mitigation strategies for county HR 1 impacts, including the 125 million for the state alternative to indigent care. This would support state funded, emergency medical for populations that would otherwise, be denied because of the work requirements.

And it's an important step to keep people connected to Medi Cal and allowing an easier transition back to full scope when exemptions or other requirements are met. We respectfully request that these items be included in the final budget agreement, and thank you for your work.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies. Just wanted to thank the legislature for their support of the $25 million for the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program. I really appreciate that and ask for your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

My name is Dr. Chettiar. I'm the CEO of Cardea Health. We provide clinical and housing services for people who are unsheltered and have complex chronic health needs. Thanks to the legislature for their leadership in bringing forth the budget that reflects the values of our great state. I'd like to speak on the Be Home Soon component of AB 109, which, among other things, expands access to home and community based waiver services for medical beneficiaries beneficiaries with chronic care needs.

There's ample data to demonstrate that providing long term care in institutions like nursing homes yields poor quality of life, high health care costs, and worse health outcomes than providing care in people's homes. With the Be Home Soon proposal, the legislator is legislature is making important structural improvements so that essential home based services that keep people in with chronic care needs at home are accessible to Medi Cal enrollees across the state.

This includes unsheltered individuals with complex health needs, children with ray of genetic disorders, elders who want to remain at home, and young adults who have sustained catastrophic injuries. In a budget that makes painful cuts, the services are very valuable community members. Thank you, guys.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Keely O'Brien with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. First, wanted to thank the legislature for the agreement to approve $5 million to automate the California food assistance program or CFAP plus changes. This repairs California to assist people losing CalFresh due to HR 1 cuts. And without it, we'll have no solution to protect people.

And more than half a million Californians will go hungry, and thousands are expected to die. We also thank the legislature to provide for providing the necessary funding to support Cal Food, the CalFresh outreach network, the diaper bank network, and for assisting counties with dealing with HR 1, and for funding legal services and deportation defense. We urge the legislature to stand with the people of California by adopting a budget that requires wealthy corporations to pay their fair share and look forward to supporting progressive revenue trailer bills. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Christine Smith, Health Access California. We appreciate the legislature delaying the worst of the cuts for California's immigrants, but we know the fight continues into the final budget and beyond. We will keep up the work to fully restore all the cuts that have been made and get California back to a place that truly provides health for all.

As one of the leaders of the fight for our health coalition, we also appreciate the legislature's work in taking key steps to ensure that ultra wealthy corporations pay their fair share to keep Medi Cal strong. We thank our legislators for their hard work and hope that together with governor Newsom, our elected leaders will deliver a budget this year that prevents harmful cuts, keeps Californias covered and maintains vital access to life saving care while we continue the fight to preserve these services. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And let me just say that there's apparently about 20 people outside that aren't in line yet that wanna speak and everybody's been really good. You haven't taken the full minute but I'm going till 1:00. So if you can be less than a minute, we'll get to everybody else. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Yasmine Peled on behalf of Justice in Aging. We're very pleased to see the inclusion of the Be Home Soon California in the final legislative agreement and also in support of the fair share contribution. Like my colleagues have already mentioned, we appreciate rejecting the $2,000 asset limit. Look forward to continuing to work with the legislature next year on this issue.

We're also pleased that the budget agreement rejects all of the governor's proposed cuts to IHSS and APS. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you. Linda Nguy with Western Center on Law and Poverty. In the interest of time, we'll just align my comments with the previous speaker as well as add particularly on the asset test as as well as the fair share contribution. And just add, while the legislature's delay in Medi Cal cuts targeted at immigrants is a vast improvement from the May revision, we remain concerned with these discriminatory cuts and look forward to continued work. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. Welcome.

Hello. I'm Daniela Rodriguez with Immigrants Rising here, very much in support of the funding for the Dream Resource Centers. And in and also ask that in the coming days, you consider including of in the final budget, a reinvestment in the social entrepreneurs for economic development initiative known as C to support small businesses, especially immigrant entrepreneurs who are under deep economic strain as their access to capital has been greatly restricted. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Jessie Hernandez-Reyes on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity. We're all thankful to the legislature for maintaining the promise of higher education in this budget. And we're grateful to see continued investments in the UC, the CSU, and California Community Colleges, as well as state financial aid investments, including, those to carefully implement work force Pell. We're especially thankful for increased investments to support the crucial work of dream resource liaisons at our California community colleges and support similar work at our high schools.

We hope to seize investments in the final budget to ensure continued college access and success for all Californians, especially those from underserved backgrounds. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Good afternoon, mister chair, members. Amy Costa here on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association, the California District Attorney's Association, and the chief probation officers. We wanna thank the legislature in particular, the Senate for recognizing the need to fund prop 36. Unfortunately, we feel the amount offered is inadequate to support the full wrap around services required for success for people who need to complete their treatment programs. Separately, on behalf of the chief probation officers, I wanna note that we remain, concerned that pretrial is not funded.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Chair members, Jael Dantas on behalf of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. We do appreciate your leadership providing funding to establish county indigent care program for supporting California public hospital system and the Medi Cal and CalFresh County eligibility. We also appreciate your lead leadership rejecting the governor's proposal related to IHSS such as the cost shift to the counties. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Good morning, mister chair. Charlotte Neal, representative of Child Care Providers United on the value of provider's work by offering us half the amount. It's the legislator saying our work is only half value as valuable. We are already struggling to make our ends meet and providers across California are being forced to close their doors every day because reimbursement rates cover a fraction of cost. Cola doesn't even keep up with the inflation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. You're welcome.

Good afternoon, mister chairman. My name is Horace Turner, childcare provider representing Childcare United. It's insult. It's it's unacceptable for the legislator to join the budget to create two tier cola that delivers and devalues the discount of work the family childcare providers do an early educator. In in the past year, the cost of groceries, the price of providing a nutrients home hot cooked meal for children in my area, in my care, in my community, it costs us more than triple the price it used to cost.

And the gas that I buy for transporting children to and from school, the parents that go to work, they can't pick them up. The nurses, the janitors, the delivery drivers increase almost a $100. We can't pay that. It's closing our bills, closing our facilities. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Hello. My name is Ivonne Bejar, childcare educator of Sacramento, the CCC bill. On the cost of living in California, recent data showed that the average California has to take home $30.48 per hour just to afford the necessities. We can barely pay ourselves and salary and those of us who do are taking home the 7 dollars to 10 an hour. How do you expect us to keep our doors open?

How do you expect us to survive? Please, I need the attention on this matter. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Good morning. I'm Alicia Torres from Stanislaus County. I'm a childcare provider from CCPU. So childcare providers are united in our call to the legislature to fully found the deliver on the 44,000 slot promised in the 2021/2022 budget. Prior to digitizing flexible vouchers slots, families across California are struggling to access care due to the childcare deserves created by rates so low that providers cannot keep their doors open.

At the same time, a lack of flexibility of flexible options for the slots that are available prevents families from accessing the care that best suits their needs. So funding slots without increasing a provider pay is an empty gesture. The legislature's joint budget proposal is putting a fresh coat of paint on the house whose foundation is crumbling. So I believe the parents and providers deserve better than that. Thank you so much for listening.

Thank you very much for your comments. Welcome.

Good morning. Thank you. My name is Tanika Banahene, with CCPU, located right here in Sacramento. I'd like to talk about the on this proposal for TK workers. Working for four year olds and older will receive a 4.31% increase of cost of living increase.

While the work that I do, we will only get 2% increase, which is we do the same type of work, the same type of work. With that 2% increase, if you do the math on, it's only $5. $5 gas cost more than that. So, with this 2% cola on property rates, they've put a band aid on this broken system. And if you pull a band aid off, it really hurts.

It really hurts us to the bone. Increase in slots without finding family childcare is empty promise. So thank you all for being here and thank you all for listening today.

Thank you very much for your comments. Welcome.

Hello. Good evening good afternoon. My name is Jessica Magdaleno. I am representing childcare providers through CCPU. And, by offering us half the increase, are they saying our work is worth only half as much?

Everyday childcare providers support children, families, and California workforce. Yet many providers are struggling while costs continue to rise. We are not asking for a special treatment. We are asking for fairness. Our work has value, and California must invest in the people who cares for the children. Childcare is essential, invests in providers. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Yeah. Good afternoon. Gabriela Chavez with United Domestic Workers. First of all, we wanna thank you, to the Senate for their strong leadership. This was an incredible difficult budget year, and we truly appreciate your commitment for supporting Californias in your decision making.

We deeply appreciate the Senate rejecting all cuts to IHSS, strengthening the medical asset test. We thank you for advancing the Be Home Soon California proposal and the several revenue proposals. We especially appreciate your commitment to not balancing the budget on the backs of low income, and as making it more, equitable approach by requiring corporations to pay the fair share. On childcare, thank you for the continued investment in childcare slot. And as we move forward, we strongly urge you increasing the COLA for providers.

Lastly, we appreciate your support for the adult learning demonstration program, and we urge you to stay strong in your negotiations as this process continue. Your leadership is making a meaningful difference for Californians. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Good afternoon. I'm Evan Fern with Disability Rights California. We thank the legislature for rejecting all three proposed cuts to in home support supportive services. We also appreciate delaying the lower asset limit for people with disabilities and seniors who use Medi Cal. $21,000 is much better than 2,000, but we'd still like to see it eliminated, or raised for more equitable access.

We also appreciate the full scope Medi Cal coverage for humanitarian immigrants through the next year, but we will also continue to advocate for ongoing full scope coverage. We're thankful to the legislature for restoring funding for mobile crisis response services, the behavioral health innovation partnership fund, and community advocacy and engagement contracts. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Ken Hartman, executive director Transformative Programming Works. Just wanna thank the legislature for supporting the right grant again this year and we really appreciate the bipartisan support we've received. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Alexis Rodriguez of California Chamber of Commerce here just to express concerns with AB 109, since that it is based off of various tax increases that'll be in the trailer bills. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hello. Sam Wilkinson with End Child Poverty in California. We are thrilled to see a budget that is premised on the promise of progressive revenue solutions. We support the fair share contribution program as well as a permanent cap on corporate tax credits. These measures, move California closer to a tax system where wealthy corporations pay their fair share and help protect investments that families and communities rely on.

In regards to healthcare, we'd like to align our comments with Justice and Aging and the Western Center on Law and Poverty. Thank you as well for including promised neighborhoods and place based community organizations in the budget. On child care, we'd love to align our comments, with CCPU, providers on the COLA. Childcare providers are the heart and soul of our communities, and they should be paid an annual increase that covers their rising costs.

We cannot allow more childcare programs to close nor force childcare providers to increase their co payment fees on parents with low incomes to keep their doors open.

We do appreciate the 22,770 new child care spaces in the legislator's, state budget proposal.

Reached a minute. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Jay Seeley with the California Taxpayers Association. We also oppose the tax increases in trailer bills AB 122 and AB 176 that this budget is predicated on. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California. I wanna thank the committee for prioritizing prison closure, the jail to jobs pilot program, right grant funding, sexual abuse of female prisoners.

We also echo the concerns expressed about the changes that CARB has made to the GGRF and the recognition that, that needs to be fixed if we're going to meet our statutory emissions reduction goals.

We have comments on the health and human services side of the budget, but those will be submitted in writing. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Hi, mister chair. My name is Christopher Bennett of the CNAPA. The DDS Postal Center Services and Regional Center operates its runs on finances and state budgets. And, for you to know, to protect our health care from from cuts. The first cell from big corporations proposal requires state to identify steps to protecting Californians with disabilities from Congress on funding cuts.

We prefer to be funded without being cut. How can we thrive? Like other Californians, other counties, from other cities. And with that, will you please urge the governor to sign a final budget of the fair sale revenue proposal.

We value your state legislature support team with us too. With that, I yield back. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Raymond Contreras on behalf of Fullwell. We are appreciative of of the state budget, the agreement that's going before you, addressing economic hardships. However, we are deeply disappointed with, the budgets agreement that did not include the CalFresh Fruit and Vegetable EBT program. Since 2023, the program has served close to a half a million households.

And in May, we saw the program has continued to grow and see participation go up in its impact. In this last month, we saw a $5,000,000 burn rate and is scheduled to shut down 06/30/2026, just two weeks away. Without this new allocation, California will lose one of its most effective tools in improving food access, preventive health care, and helping farmers across the state. We urgently request the legislature to include the funding for the CalFresh and fruit and vegetable EBT program. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Wendy Mitchell on behalf of LA Metro. We'd like to echo the the comments of the California Transit Association and thank you particularly, chair Laird for your placeholder language on the g g r f money. LA Metro alone will lose $50,000,000 in the LC TOP funding and TIRCP money is actually used for matching federal funds so it will be a double loss. And this, we feel, is it was a commitment made in the last last year with relative to the DGRF.

And so we would encourage funding moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon,

Karen members. Beth Monowski with SAO California on behalf of our seven fifty thousand workers across many SAO locals. On behalf of the UNRIG California and Fight for Health campaigns, we strongly support the new and permanent proposals for corporate sourced revenue and the fair share from big corporations program, including legislative two party budget deal. On, behalf of our health for health for all coalition, strongly support the delays and most harmful medical cuts facing American communities, rejecting many of the governor Newsom's proposed may revise cuts.

We're particularly grateful for the maintenance of the current medical asset test limit until 07/01/2027.

Additionally, I wanna align our comments with Chiak on behalf of the indigent care alternative program, meeting folks on medical fee for service, emergency only services as part of a pilot for two years. Additionally, wanna align ourselves with the public hospitals and dedicated public hospital funding. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Good morning, chair and miss mister chair and members. Diego Samayoa, policy intern with Mesa Verde Group. Here on behalf of Central American Resource Center, Carisen, echoing the comments of our colleagues in the immigrant rights organizations and on behalf of inclusive action for the city to also hope to see investments in seed to help entrepreneurs across the state.

We appreciate the legislature's additional investments into immigration legal services and would like to thank the legislature for deferring the DMV state to state proposal until there are strong guardrails in place that protect all Californians. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Welcome. Tiffany, chair and members, Tiffany Maka on behalf of CFTA, union of educators and classified professionals. We oppose what we believe is the manipulation of education funding with the unconstitutional underfunding by creating a 3,900,000,000 settle up, fund for proposition 98. There is no constitutional authority that permits proposition 98 funds to be borrowed from and spent on the general fund side of the budget. Proposition 98 settle up funds are a unilateral and unconstitutional underfunding.

Additionally, public dollars that are going to private entities for the non LEA state preschool programs is also something we oppose. The proposal change adds significant ongoing costs at the same time as the state withholds billions of dollars in dedicated education funding. We are due to reject these education funding proposals, and this is also on behalf of my colleague at CTA. Thank you

so much. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, chair members. Paul Keptan with the Association of California School Administrators. If you continue to remain strongly opposed to withholding the proposition IDA and the proposal to move privately operated preschool into proposition IDA. Withholding these funds creates uncertainty for schools and students, and moving California state preschool program into proposition IDA not only adds to that uncertainty, but would also make the program compete, compete with existing TK through 12 priorities. Additionally, access supports the paid pregnancy disability LEAP proposal.

That is currently proposed. It excludes other LEA types like community funded districts and necessary small schools. We recommend that the proposal be structured as a reimbursement program rather than funded through LCFF. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Good afternoon, mister chair members. Eric Dowdy with the California Dental Association. We wanna thank the Senate very much for protecting the prop 56 medical dental rates and we look forward to working with you on this issue next year. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good afternoon members and, here. My name is Lourdes Alarcona. I'm with Parent Voices California and I'm here to advocate for Thank you first for your 30 almost 30,000 slots that you're given these spaces for the yearly care and education. I'm a parent, and I became an educator because of the safety net and the the childcare providing. I'm also wanted to ask for the fair payer for educators because I'm an educator myself.

And also ask the that means the cost of living adjustment and also ask for the increasing and the safety net of the of what it says. We providers also educate the children and make sure that they are ready to start preschool. Thank you so much and thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

My name is Elia Fernandez and I'm with Parent Voices in San Francisco. And I'm here today to thank you for the spaces in the final budget for for childcare and also increase providers cola to cover the rising cost for the childcare centers and to thank you and adopt all the revenue solutions to hold wealthy corporates accountable and support basic needs programs for all the for all the children?

And also, can you add to your talking points today that child care is education and education is is care for support for California State Preschool and funding returns to prop 98. Shire care is part of the 98 in fourteen years and it has been out. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, senators. Thank you for your leadership. My name is Maria Lustore with Beyond Voices and, I would like to echo my my friends who thank you for increasing childcare spaces for this year to almost 30,000. Please keep this in the budget. We also, align with CCPU on increasing the cola and also thanking you for adopting all revenue solutions to hold wealthy corporations accountable and support basic programs.

Child care is education and education is care. We support the California state preschool funding return to prop 98. Schwarzenegger took it out of prop ninety eight guarantee. Childcare was part of prop ninety eight for fourteen years, longer than it's been out. Please put it back on ninety eight childcare's education.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you, mister chair. Eduardo Martinez here on a couple of items. First, on behalf of Ultimate Health Services, wanna thank the Senate, for the delay in the elimination of the clinic PPS rate for the UIS population. Also, for the adoption of the alternative fee for service UIS transition proposal and the rejection of cuts to pace. On behalf of Western Dental, the state's largest Medi Cal dental provider, we wanna thank you for the delay in cuts to dental provider rates via prop 56.

Also wanna shout out Senator Menjivar for both of those items. And then lastly, on behalf of Actors Equity and National, Labor Union of Theater Actors, we're disappointed in the lack of investment and for the performing arts equitable payroll fund and urge the legislature consider even a modest funding allocation in this extremely successful workforce development program. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you, chair and members. Trevor Nelson with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services. We wanna thank you for restoring funding at the Commission for Behavioral Health for Innovation Partners for the Innovation Partnership Fund and for Behavioral Health Advocacy Contracts. We'd also like to thank you for the 900,000,000 for round seven of the homeless housing assistance and prevention program.

We will work we will continue to work with the legislature to address the foster family agency insurance crisis in order to ensure the 6,500 foster youth served by these agencies will serve the care and support they need to thrive.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Welcome.

Well, good afternoon. Steve Wallach on behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District, the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, Foothill Transit, and the California Association for Coordinated Transportation known as CALACT.

You know, I wanna say thank

you for the support you've shown for public transit over the past few months and urge your support and and to continue to fight to address the issues with the tier three funding in the capital investment program as well as the zero emission transit capital funding program.

That's it. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education, as well as the California County Superintendents. Glad to be with you today. First of all, we'd like to thank you for supporting community schools in the state budget. We particularly, wanna express our thanks for the $1,000,000,000 but also your intention to have the program implemented with Fidelity to the existing framework and also to provide for regional technical assistance.