Senate Budget Sub5 — 2026-03-19

Good morning everyone. Let me start off by saying thank you for your patience. We were honoring a long standing lion of the Senate this morning and so we ran a little over. So particularly for those who are presenting, thank you very much for your patience and the public. With that, the Senate Budget Subcommittee number five on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Local labor and Transportation will come to order. We are holding our committee hearing here in the Capitol and I ask that all members of the subcommittee be present in room 112 so we can establish a quorum and begin our hearing. Today's hearing will cover the California State Transportation Agency, the California Department of Transportation High Speed Rail Authority, Office of Inspector General and the Department of Motor Vehicles. We will take public comment on all items at the end of the hearing. Before we begin, let me see if any members had any preliminary comments. Seeing none, we're going to start with issue number one, which is the fleet replacement with Caltrans. If those presenting would please come forward, as I understand them to be Mr. Steven Keck and Mr. Keith Duncan from Caltrans. We also have with us today the LAO members, both Goce and Rachel Ethers Eilers. I think I butchered that. I'm sorry. From the lao. And we also have with the Department of Finance, Benjamin Polek and James Moore. And we're ready for you to begin. Thank you.

Okay. All right. We'll turn to the representatives of the lao. Good morning, Madam Chair. Rachel Ehlers with the Legislative Analyst's Office. We reviewed this request. It didn't raise any concerns for us. Certainly purchasing zero emission vehicles is more expensive than traditional gas powered vehicles. But this is consistent with state policy and direction and we view this request as. As again, consistent with implementing state direction. Thank you. Any comments from depart? Did you have anything. Are you with Department of Finance?

Yep.

Nothing to add.

So the last few years, how much money has been devoted to this program? Doing some mental math, about $1.4 billion.

Yeah. You know, in the, in some of our report talks about the goal of being the greenest fleet in the nation. That's an awesome goal, except for the goal for Caltrans need to provide us with transportation corridors and other transportation methods, whether it's road, rail, bus, whatever the heck it is with roads that are adequate, not 49th out of 50 in the nation. And that's where we're at right now. These vehicles cost about three times, two to three times as much as another vehicle that can do exactly the same thing. And with the cleaner burning fuels that we do have. And I know that because we were using those in the fire service. There's a compromise there, but we're not compromising. Instead, we're creating goals to make us the greenest fleet in the whole nation. I would rather us change our goals to meeting some of those. Some of the efforts to address the environmental concerns. And this is on our part, this is something that the legislature needs to do too, and get back to doing what Caltrans and the Department of Transportation is supposed to do, which is provide us with a transportation system in California and roads that are reflective of the amount of investment that us taxpayers are putting into it. And we are not getting that. We're not even getting Close to that. This is the ire and angst of so many of my constituents and other constituents all over the state. We have an interchange down there. It's not even an overpass. The underpass is already there. It's been in the works for 12 years now and it's gone from $25 million to over $60 million with delays because we just don't have the efforts to be able to put into it and we don't have the personnel to get these things through. We're done with excuses. We need some damn roads. Our district is being forced to accept a bunch of growth through more housing and things like that. We don't have road infrastructure. We don't have road infrastructure to handle that for the few jobs that California is creating. We don't have roads where people can drive to those jobs if they can get them.

I don't want to put another dime in the into this replacement stuff. What I want is efficiency. Not to be the greenest we can be. How about if we're the 10th, the 15th or 20th greenest and we spend more money on roads? That's what I would like to see this. As you can see, my passion is the passion of my constituents every time they take a teeth rattling ride down the 215 because they can't get it resurfaced. So I'm not a big fan of spending this much money and trying to move that process so fast that we're replacing perfectly good vehicles with other vehicles that cost three times as much. Putting those other ones, I don't know where the heck those go, but we're just putting them in the boneyard when they have plenty of life left in them. And at what cost? It's a cost to us. It's a cost to our road infrastructure that we would desperately need. And in the meanwhile, some of the. And this is directly from that fund, this money comes directly from that fund that builds state highways. So I don't think it's a good trade off. I would like to see us do something much different, adjust our mandates so that they can adjust their goals to better reflect what Californians need. That's it. No great questions.

Thank you, Senator. So, first, let me say that our budget request reflects the need to account for these higher costs when we go to purchase these vehicles. So in terms of balancing what we're buying, what we are asking for for a budget augmentation, we'll fund that. Second, we're seeing offsets with the maintenance of these vehicles compared to a traditional gasoline fueled vehicle. These are actually much cheaper to maintain. We've only been doing this replacement for about five years, so we don't have long term data yet, but so far we're seeing savings in terms of the maintenance of the vehicles as they move forward. Regarding the charging infrastructure, this last probably two years, we've seen a huge change in what's available out there to charge these larger vehicles. I think I read this morning that we're able to charge some of these big ones now in a matter of hours instead of the eight to 10 hours it used to take with the newer equipment out there. So we've really come a long way since we began doing this project, initially with the smaller passenger vehicles and now with the larger fleet vehicles. And it's fair to say too, that the 1100 vehicles that we're looking to purchase with this money, not all of them will be electric because electric vehicles are not necessarily available in every category that we need to replace. I don't have the exact numbers in terms of what we hope to be able to do electric versus traditional fuel, but it will be a trade off between the two, depending on availability in the industry.

I did, yes.

I said by May. So I don't have an exact date for you, but I am hopeful that it will be done as soon as early maybe.

Yeah, I.

Yeah. So there are some complications with creating and compiling the data and putting it into a usable format. Beyond that, I do not have a reasonable explanation for the lateness of this report.

Understood?

Yes.

Understood. Thank you.

Thank you. I have a question I've worked really hard and brought up to Caltrans and other departments and agencies about labor standards in our procurement process. So my question is, does this procurement for these vehicles include labor standards for the manufacturing and the maintenance jobs?

And if so, could you explain it what that is?

Yeah, I mean, I don't want it to be, you know, companies that pay minimum wage know that that's, that's a labor standard that's just not acceptable for, for the investment that we put in. You know, with our tax dollars, we ought to be able to count on some good paying jobs. And affordability is a big issue right now and it has been and I'm sure will continue to be for a while. We need people to to be able to earn what. And these are, I'm talking about jobs here, manufacturing, maintenance. There's so many different ways in which we could. So if you would let me know and I will respond further after getting that information. And I really expect, I'm raising and asking you the question because I really expect that this would, we would prioritize contracts that do provide the highest labor standards available. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Yeah, I did. You know, obviously Caltrans with this many vehicles, doesn't replace them all at once. And usually when you have large fleets, you have a, an amount of money that you put aside for equipment replacement reserves and those get put aside every year so that when a vehicle needs to be purchased, the money is there to purchase it. Have you guys adjusted your reserve maintenance account that we need to put in there every year in the budget to reflect what these new vehicles cost?

And the report that we're going to get back on April 20, does that have the, the costs of the replacement for the vehicles? The individual vehicle costs?

And the last question and follow up to Senator Durazzo's request, are all the vehicles California made vehicles? Because most of the large equipment vehicles I see are made in the Midwest, Nebraska, Iowa.

I can because I drive by them once in a while. So yeah, some of those equipment, a lot of the heavy equipment, isn't even made in California anymore. So we don't have control over their labor laws outside of the state. So I can understand why. And that would impede getting vehicles until we were able to get somebody here to build them and then hire a workforce. So that Kind of would work in detriment to trying to accomplish my goal, which is building more roads.

So yeah, we'll be happy to provide some information. I don't know if I was clear in what I was trying to convey. This request is a one year request as opposed to the prior two requests that have been multiple year requests. Yes, and that's because we are undertaking that, that review and reassessing where we are now and where we need to be to develop a long term budgetary need for the department. So at this point I can't give you a number, but that is why, why this is only a one year request is so that we can complete that analysis and come back to you with solid information.

Okay.

Yeah. Thank you. And we'll get you some more detailed information. But just for reference, we have about 12,250 pieces of vehicles and pieces of equipment we have already replaced nearing 6,000 or will by the end of this year. So that's almost half. But these are vehicles that all have different replacement cycles. Some of our vehicles are already 20 years old. And that's okay for the type of work that they do. But yeah, we can certainly provide that information by April.

No, I understand. The, the 17th is our, is our goal here to make me smile? Yeah, absolutely. Which is always my goal. That may not be included in the report, but it will be supplementary information

Yes.

Understood?

Yes.

I think this. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senators KEITH Duncan, Caltrans Budget Officer Issue two. On today's agenda, as mentioned, is a proposal by Caltrans, the California Department of Transportation, to amend Government Code 14017, which was enacted in 2023, authored by Senator Durazzo. Annually, Caltrans on behalf of the State of California, receives federal formula funds through the Federal Highway Administration for investment and benefits to our state and local transportation Systems. Government code 14017 required that Caltrans transfer a portion of those federal formula funds to the California Workforce Development Board for investment into the state's High Road Construction Careers Program that creates reliable career pathways through the delivery of structured, high quality training throughout the state. The challenge was and is that the use of these federal formula funds for training purposes must meet specific federal eligibility requirements as specified in federal statutes, such as having a direct nexus between training and the specific benefits to the national highway and national transportation systems. Unfortunately, due to the federal eligibility requirements, we are unable to receive the necessary federal authorization to use these federal funds as the state law intended. And instead of just throwing up our hands. And due to this limitation, this proposal for your consideration is to amend the government code to swap out those federal funds and replace it with $30 million in state funds redirected from the state highway account. So these state funds can thus be transferred from Caltrans to the California Workforce Development Board for investment into the high road construction careers program to meet the original intent of the law. I am joined today by members, representatives from the California Workforce Development Board, as well as our friends from the Department of Finance. And we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Not at this time.

Nothing to add at this time.

My question is on what's the track record for the existing program? Do we have a. We have any statistics indicating the success of this program or is this brand new and we don't have a track record at all? And we're just hopefully.

Thank you.

So I believe heavily in our workforce development efforts and what the good work of the workforce development boards. One of my concerns is that as we try to fund this from a federal standpoint, if it's federal funding and our workers get trained here and they go out throughout the United States, you know, it's federal money, wherever they work probably benefits the federal government. But when it's state money, I'd kind of like to know if after we're training them, if they're taking the high road out of the state and not benefiting our workforce at all. And that's one of my concerns. So is there any way of tracking that to make sure that the investment that we're making are actually producing workers here in California as opposed to helping the rest of the nation get some very high skilled labor in their worlds where they will not be benefiting from whatever is that California does to make them productive. Because without housing and with the affordability issues that California is offering right now, a lot of sectors out there are going away. And I would imagine the construction sector is no different. And in fact, I know construction people that left the state to go do business.

With the local that they signed up with.

Right. Some of the experience that I've had with some of our union workers out there is they have a tendency to try to get some work on the side because they're not getting offered enough work through their union. And so they kind of branch out a little bit and then they eventually move out of the state. And that's. We need to get a. We need to be able to have some statistics that the money that we're putting into programs like this that we're producing people for here. And so every once in a while I do come up with a good question. So thank you for that and I'll pass it along to Mr. Razzo.

Perfect.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know a little bit about this. So the bill that I authored, signed by the Governor July of 2023, it was part of the Governor's infrastructure streamlining package. The bill required caltrans to work in partnership with the California Workforce Development Board to support the High Road construction careers and reserve a minimum of $50 million of the federal dollars that we were receiving to be allocated over 40 years in support of the program three years later. Today, that $50 million has not been transferred. As I understand it, SB150, in fact was passed with an urgency statute. So not only did it require the transferring of the $50 million, it also took effect immediately because the legislature determined that maximizing the federal funding for California workers could not wait three years of administrative inaction appear to have squandered that urgency. The Workforce Development Board's High Road Construction Careers program has a strong track record. They prepare thousands of low paid Californians for construction careers. As my colleague was talking about this program, the program is being penalized for agency inaction, not for any failure of the program itself. I've spent years trying to build the kind of interagency coordination that would have prevented this. Years, year after year after year. This trailer bill validates the concern, but does nothing to fix the underlying problem. So my question to you is, why was no interagency agreement or MOU executed between Caltrans and the Workforce Development Board?

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Now you're saying the problem was the

You didn't apply for it when you should have?

So.

We'll be able to invest those that monies into the, into transportation projects, both state and local transportation projects.

Yes.

The intentions are to allocate the funds over the next two to three years.

Yes. Because in order for us to use those federal funds, we first have to get that authorization from the feds. So when we, when we submitted the request a couple years ago, we were unable to get their approval or their authorization. So without that authorization, we would not be able to spend those funds in the first place.

We, we've submitted, like I said, when, when the bill was passed, when the bill was enacted, we immediately collaboratively with the California Workforce Development Board and Caltrans, we developed the scope of work and we immediately submitted it to Federal Highway Administration to receive their authorization so we can then execute the interagency agreement.

We had to submit that scope of work so we can get the authorization so we could execute that interagency agreement. That's the precursor, like a prerequisite for that interagency agreement. We could have executed an interagency agreement or an MOU between the two departments. But because there was no authorization from the federal government, there would be no funding associated with it. So we needed to first get their authorization before we can execute an agreement that actually had funding associated to it.

For that I have to defer to my colleague. It has, yeah. Senator. Yes, it has.

Yes, Senator.

Yes, Senator.

Yeah, the way it's. I forget the code exactly, but the way it's defined in statute, one that provides a living wage, opportunities for advancement and worker voice.

in high road training, opportunities for advancement. So knowing that in the next few years you'll get paid more than you're currently being paid, and then worker voice, which can look like union representation.

I'm not.

Yes, Senator.

Thank you, Senator Durazzo. I have a few questions here to ask. SB150 originally set aside 50 million for the high road construction careers program, which is what the Senator just reviewed, but the administration is proposing to cut that down to 30 million. If the administration is. Is getting the use of still 50 million from the federal government. Right. Why wouldn't we allocate then the true 50 million towards this program of state funds?

And when comparing those priorities, that's where

Okay, let me say this in a different way. Didn't you receive 50 million from the federal government.

I, I understand that. I'm just saying, did you or did you not receive 50 million?

That's correct.

Correct.

Correct. The federal 50 million federal funds, as Caltrans noted, has those requirements for what

Okay, so what I'm not getting and what I think the senator was alluding to is where's the money? So if you got 50 million, right. The state got $50 million and to substitute it, we're kind of moving money from accounts is what it sounds like to me. So the 50 million is going to go towards projects that the federal government will, will approve. But we normally wouldn't have had that 50 million. Right. Because we were going to direct it towards 50 million towards this program, Correct?

Okay, so what I'm saying is now that the state is using, okay, you got 50 million that we, the state didn't have to pay 50 million towards these other projects because now we have that money for it. So what I'm saying is now that the state didn't have to pay the 50 million for those projects. You're now giving 30 million here. And I'm saying, where's the other 20 million? You're using it for other projects, right? That's what he said. That's what he testified. So if we're using the 20 million for other projects that the state would have normally paid for that we knew we were going to have to pay for these projects. Now that the state doesn't have to pay that other 20 million for these other projects, what are we going to use that 20 million for?

federal dollars which have those specific requirements

Okay, so are there additional projects that are maximizing the use of workforce, of the apprenticeship program? Aren't there other State projects where we're identified and we focus on bringing more and more workers in?

Okay, so is it possible potentially to help some of those additional projects go to help with those projects where, as it was stated in the original legislation, was supposed to maximize benefits to the disadvantaged communities? You're not following me. So what I'm saying is, if you can bring back to the committee this other $20 million that's out there that we anticipated was going to. To go towards this workforce program, can you share with us, provide to us this other $20 million, where is it going to go, what projects and if potentially, is it possible that those projects that might be worked on is feeding into maybe some of the organizations we work with, the workforce, labor organizations, maybe we can feed and get more people working. So we're still kind of getting at it in some way. Is that possible versus just 20 million going to who knows where and to what projects?

what those projects include.

The intention. Oh, I wasn't sure if it was finance or myself. The intentions are to start the funds flowing as early as May. It's a matter now that the interagency agreement has been signed by both entities. We now bureaucracy is. We now send it to Department of General Services so they can officially execute it, and then we can begin the processes to get the funds flowing. But the goal right now is looking at a May timeline.

Yeah, we'd be happy to work with the California Workforce Board and the first tranche of funds to get that laid out for you. No problem.

The intentions are to start spreading the funds over the next two to three years. If we can execute the NH agreement, begin working with the Workforce Development Board to start getting the funds start flowing in May. We're looking at over the next two to three years where funds are then transferred to the necessary work centers and going through the HRCC processes. But I can definitely get that layout of what the timelines are for the rollout netlify funds. No problem.

Is the $30 million that you're proposing from our state funds, which should have been 50 from this, from the federal. Is that money already identified and reserved or is this some future commitment subject to some other future appropriation we've already lost out here with tens of millions of dollars. What's to say it's not gonna. We're not gonna lose out again? So what's the certainty here?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, ma'.

Madam Chair, members of the committee. Chandri. I'm the commissioner for the California Highway Patrol. It's good to see you. I just want to say we're grateful for. For the opportunity to be here to discuss a couple proposals that are in the governor's budget. And personally, I want to say thank you to the legislature for the support the department's felt in the past few years. The first proposal. Let me introduce Ty Meeks. He's our captain. You know him, he's the special representative. He's my wingman here today. The first proposal regard to equipment and operating cost. Right now, the California Highway Patrol respectively is requesting an augmentation of 15.7 million from the motor vehicle account in the current fiscal year 2526 and 44.4 million from the MVA in 2627. Historically, the CHP has been able to absorb these costs for equipment and operations within our base budget, often relying on salary savings from vacancies that we've had. And the department does not typically come forward with specific budget requests for these kinds of expenses, even when the costs have risen due to inflation. We're at a critical point that our salary savings have decreased and we simply can no longer offset these costs. I want to talk just a little bit about budget augmentations we've gotten over the past two decades in this space. Since 2006, the department has received 30, 34.5 million in budget augmentations for offices, vehicle replacement, air fleet replacement, automobile insurance and fuel cost. Since 2020, like all state agencies, we've done our part. We've participated in the reduction drills to help relieve the pressure on the state budget. For us, Those reductions equaled 29.1 million. The difference between the two a 5.3 million augmentation since 2006. Inflation and cost increase of the consumables that we have have outpaced that augmentation significantly. Two things that I want to just highlight that we're known for using fuel and patrol cars. Fuel has gone up since 2006, 57%. And even more alarming, the cost of a patrol car has gone up. Back in 2006, we could buy a fully out equipped patrol car for $26,000. Today, that cost to us is just north of $100,000 per vehicle. That's nearly a 300% increase. We respect the LAO analysis and they correctly point out the state's average inflation rate of 2.8% up to the year 2019. We respectfully request they include the two higher years that followed that 21 and 22, 6.6 and 5.7 inflation, respectively. A quick Google search this morning on the Consumer Price index shows since 2006, the two decades I'm referencing, we've experienced somewhere between 60 and 70% inflation. As previously noted, the department's ability to absorb these increases was through salary savings or position vacancies. Why is that no longer a possibility? It's a good thing and it's something that we did together. And when I say we, the administration, the department, the legislature, we're no longer able to use salary savings due to, in my opinion, one of the most successful recruitment campaigns in the in the country. As every law enforcement agency was struggling to recruit.

The CHP was no different. When I first was appointed in 2023, we were embarking on an ambitious recoupment campaign called join the 1000. The 1000 was not a number that we just pulled out of the sky. The 1000 referred to the estimate of vacancies that we had at the time. 1,000 uniform vacancies. That was a team effort, like I said, supported by the this body, supported by Governor Newsom and his team. The campaign worked. I'm here to tell you mission accomplished. It was undeniably successful. This year we received a record number of applications, 30,000 applications. Recently, the LA Times published a story. The title of the story, I quote, how the CHP has drawn a flood of new recruits when the LAPD and other agencies struggled to hire. Close quote. In 2425, the department had 861 uniform vacancies trending down from that thousand. As of February 1, 2026, we reduced that number to 418 uniform vacancies. There are currently 143 cadets training in West Sacramento. They're going to graduate in April. By the end of this fiscal year, we estimate our vacancies will be down to 388. And if we continue to train in our projections and retain retirements and graduations, we plan to have four classes. Next year. That number of vacancies will be down to 236. And I would just note that is the lowest number of vacancies in my 28 years with the department. These aren't just numbers. When you talk about staffing and putting officers on the road that is making California safer. There is a direct correlation between the number of police police officers on our streets and how safe our communities are. I want to highlight just a couple. I pulled this information from the Attorney General's website directly. In a reduction in violent crime 5.9% across the state from 23 to 24. Property crime down 8.2% in the time frame. Particularly noteworthy, auto theft which the CHP is the lead on. Auto theft in the state down 50 15% in that our bread and butter what we're known for traffic safety. 4,000 people a year on average die in California since 2023. As we've driven the number of officers up on the roads, the number of fatalities have come down 2023. We estimate around 340 less fatalities in California from the year prior. 2024 down an additional 80. 2025 down an additional additional approximately 200. The total number 615 lives saved over those past few years. In closing, this proposal is not vague and open ended. It's not a discretionary expansion of our mission. It's a specific request to maintain the course that we embarked on together back in 22 and 23 to reduce those number of vacancies and we respectfully request your support in it.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Senators with the LAO as the department presented, CHP's augmentation request totals $60 million on a one time basis from the motor vehicle account for the years 202526 and 202627 for a variety of operational equipment costs. Our office recommends that the legislature reject this proposal. We identified three issues that led to this recommendation. One is that these expenses are not new. It's unclear why the Department requires funding now when it has not needed these types of augmentations in the past. Inflation's always been present, vehicles and equipment have always needed replacement and the department already has an existing budget of $95 million for the expenses listed in this budget request. The second issue is CHP's vacancy rate. The Department explained to us that in the past they were able to use salary savings from vacancies to cover the equipment and operating costs. But because of the declining vacancy rate, this is no longer enough, hence the budget request. However, the data does not support this claim as CHP's vacancy rate is still above pre pandemic levels. Which raises the question of if the salary savings from the vacancies was enough to cover these expenses in 2019 when the vacancy rate was 3%. Why is it not enough when the vacancy rate is above 6% as of 2024? The third issue is the fiscal condition of the motor vehicle account. The account has been experiencing a persistent structural imbalance and is currently projected to become insolvent by 202829 budget year. This means that the account will not have adequate funding to cover core baseline expenses such as salaries. In order to not worsen this problem, we think that the legislature should apply a very high bar for approving any new requests, including one time expenses. Considering the issues we identified with this proposal, we do not believe that this proposal clears this high bar. For these three reasons, we recommend that the legislature reject this proposal. We understand that CHP disagrees with our recommendation and has new information that they believe bolsters their argument for why the legislature should approve this request. We reached our conclusions based on the information that was available to us at the time of publication and have not had a chance to review this new information yet. So we can only speak in the context of what was available to us at the time. We are currently working with the department and will review any new information that they will provide to us and we will share any updates to you with you and to our analysis to your staff to the degree that it affects our conclusions. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Am.

Yeah. Bone Peterson, Department of Finance. I would just like to reiterate the commissioner's comments that given the reduction of vacancies and those projected vacancy volumes at the end of 2526, CHP's expenditures are currently going to be outpacing its appropriation. So therefore, the historic vacancy savings that were able to fund these operations in the past are not able to any longer. And we would be proposing this request to compensate for that.

Thank you.

Hey, question on the vacancies. So the vacancies are actually the human being part of it. But there are other assets that each one of those human beings needs. Like a vehicle, like other equipment that has that always been. Is that just stored in a closet somewhere or as we ramp back up because through attrition the vehicles go off. And if you don't have a person to fill it because your vacancies, you don't fill them. But then when you get those vacancies back, something there, we're going to have a rise in cost for all of that. That equipment is that kind of what, what's going on with some of this request?

But my question is, if you're increasing staffing, though, in addition to what you used to have at graveyard, instead of having four vehicles out at graveyard, now you have enough personnel to send seven to 10 people out in graveyard, you would need more vehicles. And if they've been sitting around for six or seven years, they probably just need to get replaced. And since they don't cost $25,000 and cost $100,000, there's an expense that I think is unexpected that the DMV fund does not necessarily fund.

Body worn cameras, all of that type

All right, so I think one of our problems is this, the DMV fund being the fund that is not going up commensurate with the costs of providing the services that that DMV fund is putting. And it's been going on. It's a structural problem with DMV fund for the last few years, is that correct? And I think the legislature, if we're going to look at the levels of public safety that we need and want, we're going to have to look at ways of augmenting that DMV fund because otherwise we're either not going to have a DMV or we're not going to have a chp. And I don't think we can do with either of those, Although some people might think we can can do without the other, but not the chp. We need our tickets. Thank you.

For CHP, given the account's projected insolvency in 28 or 29, how are you going to prioritize against other core obligations funded by the account?

Yeah. I would just go ahead to add that, you know, given the insolvency that is projected out of the motor vehicle account 28, 20, 29, we're just going to need to continue to evaluate the priorities for all of us at those points in times in order to figure out how to best allocate the resources that we have.

I mean, that's why I pointed to you, sir, about what would you use. Right. How would you prioritize given that situation?

And the only discretion I have, like I said, is required reducing vacancies or increasing vacancies by slowing down the number of people that I put into the academy in an attempt to fill those. It feels counterproductive to do this at a time where every law enforcement agency in the country was struggling to hire people. We have 33,000 applicants this year. It would seem a shame to close that valve off. I hope that answers your question.

Thank you very much.

If I may, Madam Chair, just to build on Senator Salarta's comment, you know, if we assume that these costs cannot be accommodated within the budget because the vacancies have gone down as the department is indicating. You know, this is a one time funding request before you now, but the types of costs represented in it really are ongoing costs. Utilities, fuel insure, insurance, those types of types of costs. So it does highlight an ongoing. An exacerbation of the ongoing structural problem with the funding source here. If we assume, you know, the budget could accommodate These costs this year on a one time basis. But if they truly are ongoing costs that cannot be accommodated this year, it raises the question of how will these be accommodated on an ongoing basis? Thank you. All right. I just had really a comment and then a question. A comment. Sir, you made an excellent presentation as always. The only thing I would add is we. You didn't mention that the CHP had to come in and provide support to help us with some of the other activities that were happening in the state. And I believe the chp, the way that you approach the situation, help to minimize some of the additional conflict that could have in fact occurred. So you also had that on your plate. And then you have upcoming the super bowl again, you have FIFA, that's coming up and you also have the Olympics. So that all tells me that this is a something we're not going to be able to avoid. Vehicles, your vehicles have to be able to run and run quickly. Just inherent in the work that you do. It's not like the previous presentation where if a Caltrans, you know, truck maybe if it, you know, can't go 100 miles an hour, well, that's probably a good thing. But in your case, you know, we need the vehicles to operate at their utmost maximum. Hence, I think, you know, obviously the Department of Finance supporting this request. The only thing I would add, which I think was what Senator Durazzo was getting at and what Lao was just saying is I think there's kind of a philosophy in government, you know, well, we'll just ask for this now and, you know, we'll deal with it later. We really need to begin to have a better understanding of what's coming. And so I realized that the administration may not necessarily want us to know that you're going to come back in, you know, eight months and ask us, you know, for this amount or larger again. But we really do need to know. So maybe in a future overview that you'll provide to the committee, give us a sense with the full amount of people that you have, what do you really think the needs are going to be? Because we also then have to look at the DMV budget and maybe we say we can't take X out of this DMV budget to pay for high speed rail or whatever it is. And we need to make sure that those dollars are going to remain there for the anticipated increases that we're going to have. So I would just say give us an idea of what's coming so then we can begin to make those longer term decisions. And say, you know, no, the, this other priority that's been indicated is not going to be able to come out of that area.

Am.

Okay. All right. Seeing no further questions, that completes issue number three, we're going to move to issue number four, which still has our CHP team officers here. Issue four is our highway Violence Task Force. We're going to hear again from the commissioner, also our captain, and we have the same representatives for the LAO and Finance. So with that, go ahead, sir.

Am.

Thank you, sir. Anything else to add, any of you?

Okay. Lao.

Thank you, Mr. Sirdo. Any questions or comments? Comments.

So.

Thank you, Senator Durazo.

Absolutely, ma'.

Yeah.

Yeah, the reduction is over 65% since the highest year we experienced in 2021. They're solving cases. To the senator's point, these cases are solved through analytics. Otherwise you're just kind of going out and trying to luck into it. And so the data and the analytics and going in with criminal intelligence is helping us solve these cases and drive the freeway shootings and the violent behavior down.

Senator, thank you for your question. The chart that you're looking at right there, we did make some adjustments in what we were tracking as far as highway violence goes.

and those shootings when we had established

Since then, we've incorporated other items to address brandishing domestic violence that's committed on a freeway. Objects that are thrown from the overpass onto the freeway, those items have increased. Those call outs and the way that we track that has changed since 2023, which you'll also see in there, significant climb from 2023. Moving forward, we did have a meeting with our crime analysts and we adjusted what that measurement looked like so that we can have a better picture and other objects and other things that we need to address through this Highway Violence Task Force.

Okay, well, it doesn't. It's not something that I could pick up. If the numbers shown here show increase year after year after year, that's all we have in front of us, except for that one category. So in your prior funding, you had included overtime, license plate recognition cameras. This is analytics only. So what makes you think that, or what brings you to that conclusion, that analytics alone will be effective?

And then just, finally, just one more question. If the legislature approves this as an ongoing funding, what metrics and reporting will you provide to demonstrate that you are, in fact, being effective?

Well, it would help to tell us, you know, get to us, information as to what metrics and reporting you'll provide to us what metrics and reporting you will use.

Thank you.

I do.

Mr. Scott.

Oh, Mr. Scott first. Okay.

Thank you. Do you have a presentation to keep? Yes.

So thank you. No. Okay, so Senator Siardo, you're up first.

47.

So we're going to do live testing this summer. That's the plan. We were able to secure funding in the current year. I think we got it approved in budget building junior around September. That was allowed us to get us off the ground and have it built. CDT worked very closely with us to make sure that we're ensuring exactly all the correct modifications are right. Only ensuring what the federal requirements are, what the five pointers we're going to use and how we're going to interact with other states. And so the goal is to have it done and have our positions onboarded in the budget year and and attack as many duplicate records as we possibly can and make sure that we are communicating with every state as quickly as possible not to create any backlog. And so the amount of funding that we have requested should ensure a successful project.

Big State? It's been.

Well, I think you have to go back. Steve Gordon, Director of California Department of Motor Vehicles. Good to see you again, Senator. The, you know, this act, real ID act was in 20 in 2005. So state, state is an offshoot of 2000 of that investment. Real ID started rolling out in 2015. So it's been alive for about a decade. And state to state has always been a requirement. We signed an agreement with the Federal Government in 2018, the state of California did, to be able to go on the state to state system. So it's been around for a while. So a couple of decades of the program. You know, Real ID has been around for at least a decade, since 2015, as I mentioned, California now has 22 million and some change. Real ID holders. Today, 2/3 of our driver's license and ID cardholders are holders of Real IDs. While as Mr. Scott mentioned, you know, this is a compliance act for the federal government. Two thirds of our people rely on that to get into federal facilities, airports and so on. And people of course rely on the driver's license to rent a car and so on to make sure the identity communities are valid and the veracity is high.

That's a great question.

This is like a couple in the same day. So congratulations. Look, it's complicated, it's technical, the approach. We're the largest state, so there is some push and pull going on at the federal level. And of course we belong to. Not of course, but we belong to an association called amva. American association of Motor Vehicle Administrators are very exciting group. But part of that is, you know, we're the largest state, of course, with 40 million inhabitants, many of those residents having some sort of credential. So in some sense there's been a caution amongst the association to make sure California went last. Because you can imagine as we dump 40 million people in the state into the system, there'll be duplicates, as Mr. Scott mentioned, and other states are going to have to deal with those. So there's been this push and pull about should we go earlier, should we go later? But the point is that we're at the very end of the implementation date. So we need to go, we need to go now. We are the last state to enter. But it is that bow wave of California enters is going to cause challenges for Texas, for Arizona, for Nevada, all of our neighboring states maybe where there's some migration in or out. So there's again some push from the association to push us out a little bit. But the fact of the matter is that we're out of room and we need to make sure that we go now.

I would even add to that.

Coming out last, I know a lot of other states that we worked with a little nervous that California was going to come on board. I mean, we're dumping millions and millions of records. And so we've seen the automation working in other states. We're trying to see like a minimal amount of touching as much as possible and what work to what didn't work. And so being the last state does have a little bit of a benefit to seeing that we get to gather all the information and implement what is truly successful from the state that went one versus the one that went 50.

We're nervous.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Durazzo, thank you.

Is it correct to say Amba?

Yes.

Not to my knowledge, Senator. It's, you know, it's meant. It's in. It's in the name state to state. So it's meant for a neighboring jurisdiction when somebody comes in to apply for a license to be able to reach out when there's a conflict, when there is a concern that maybe there are multiple Steve Gordons and they're trying to, you know, de duplicate the system and cause the state to reach out to another state to de duplicate the process. AMVA is really just the pass through. They're the holder of this connector. They call it a pointer system. For me to know that the other Steve Gordon's in another state, federal government's not involved in any way, shape or form other than this is a federal requirement for Real ID certification.

Not to my knowledge.

Let me answer them in reverse order. In California's data, there's no differentiation for a federally non compliant card from somebody who has legal presence and somebody who does not. So there's no differentiation in the data. So there's no way to be able to tell by just looking at the data that it is a particular type of card if you're in a federally non compliant card, which would be somebody in the AB60 camp. So that's the first part. There's no way of noticing that by just casually looking at the data. So as the data gets uploaded, there's no way to differentiate in that system which is which. And just to add to that, since we know people with an AB60 categories often do not have a Social Security. Some, some do as you know, some people had legal presence or didn't or obtained it. So they're still in that particular card. But as that information is uploaded, we're only loading the last five digits of the Social Security, not the full. So you're going to need, you're going to need first name, last name, date of birth and other criteria in addition to Social Security would be a tiebreaker if you can't determine if there's a duplicate based on the other criteria. So it is going to be safeguarded. Of course it's transmitted encrypted and transit encrypted. At rest it's restricted about who has access to this to your federal government question. So very limited access even to the states. And it's on a one by one basis. So another state is trying to determine if there's a duplicate Steve Gordon. You know that they'll have to do it one at a time. And that's not a way that you would expect anybody who's trying to do anything nefarious to do it, you know, one at a time. It's not. Not a super effective way. So it's intentionally made to go slow. It's a intentionally made to be careful.

Thank you.

That's a great question. It's Social Security number, as you know, is included in a lot of things, including when I got hired on the state. I've never written my Social Security number down as many times as I did on state form. So it is a common.

It has nothing to do with your ability to drive, but it is a common element across the states. Long before, you know, we got to this point, to the senator's point, that decisions were made about the information that was available 20 years ago, Social Security number was in the mix because it was a common element. As much as we want to get Social Security number out of these systems and want to use an all alternative strategy, you know, the rest of the nation is not there yet today.

That's right.

There are many design choices that were made with the system. I'm not quite sure why the architectural decision about using 5 vs 4 vs 3. I agree with you. Most of us use when we're inquired about a Social Security. Give us your last four of your soc. Very common. My guess is they were trying to, you know, reduce the amount of duplication by using five digits versus four, give you a greater level of precision so you can continue to do dup de duplicate without actually being rejected into a manual process. So I think they're trying to reduce costs, reduce the labor of deduplicating the transactions. Meaning that they can match more because there's more precision in the numbers in front of them. That's as best as I can deduce from.

I don't have an answer for that. How the system was architected, ma'.

Who's requiring five?

Okay, so what governing authority does this association have?

Am.

Member states who run the association architected the system and they've agreed that the best way to reduce duplicates and reduce manual processing is to have an architecture that includes those five digits and many other facets. So we were at that table as well. As I mentioned, 2018 is when we signed the agreement. California agreed to this in 2018 and that is how who agreed? My predecessor in this role is a signatory.

I don't know exactly how that process works.

I would be happy.

We have full contractual rights to do all of those things, including alerts and notices when, you know, incidents occur where maybe something occurs that appears to be atypical requirement request of particular data, maybe a request pattern. All of those things are opportunities for us to trigger an alert on interesting activities, as you would do with, you know, looking at a. If you were a bank, you'd be doing something very similar. You're looking for fraud signatures to make sure that if something bad has happened, you can get notification earlier. So we've been working with AMVA on making sure those are identified and those are effectuated by the time we get onto the system.

Well, in the broadest sense, most of the resources here are actually to deduplicate the data. And they're in the first couple of years. As I mentioned, as California enters our 40 million, 30 million of us have credentials. As they enter that system, there's going to be a large deduplication effort. Technology will do a number of those deduplications. But other states that have gone through this process see about 10% failure rate of people that have moved to another jurisdiction or people from another jurisdiction that moved here. And we have to be able to then figure out which one is the right Steve Gordon in my example, and which one is the last. Which state has the last license for that? So the plan is there are several. There's 100. I don't have the exact number in front of me, but actually I do have it in front of me. But there's, you know, 100 or so people in the, in the first year, then another hundred or so folks in the second year to make sure we actually get through the deduplication process. Then we are. Then we're on a regular, ongoing run basis. We're going to learn a lot in that first year based on the number of people that we're based on, what we've learned in that first year about how much work we're going to have in the out years. So there is some investment.

There's contractual obligations and legal, legal options to hold AMBA accountable as well as our peer states accountable if, if those were to occur. But there's no way to download or upload other than a state uploading our data into the system. I probe that point many times with the chief technology officer of Amber because I too, am concerned that we want to make sure this system is robust, it's protected, to make sure that there are no backdoors that people can get information that they should not have.

I would believe so, yeah. But we can.

I mean, I think it's important to note, too, Madam Chair, that it's not optional, you know, so it's part of the REAL ID act, and the consequences are that, you know, your real ID wouldn't be compliant, that Californians wouldn't be able to board a plane or be able to go into federal facilities. We're also the 50th state, like we were sharing earlier. So we have asked all, not all, but many other states in our, in our process in the current year. So far, we haven't seen any problems, but you have to participate in order to have your real ID be compliant. And so to your point, if any other state ever heard of any misuse or problems, you know, we would definitely collectively be talking to each other and then evaluate it or contract a pullback from there.

I'm unaware, but I can.

I'm unaware of the lawsuit. I mean Oklahoma is on the system. I mean 44 jurisdictions plus DC so 45 jurisdictions are on the system today. Oklahoma is one of them. I'm unaware of any legal action by Oklahoma or what that legal action would be based on, but I will follow up and find out.

If you could check into that.

Thank you.

So AMVA is member driven. So we are a voting member as part of AMVA. We are a funder of AMVA at as are 50 other jurisdictions plus the District of Columbia.

Senator, we have made various suggestions to the Amber Board as well as the state to state operating committee regarding different strategies so you can improve privacy preservation. But we have been ineffective in actually being able to convince the other jurisdictions that changes such as you're suggesting would be the right approach. We are going to continue to try though, because we think it's the right approach. We don't believe Social Security numbers should be as pervasive as they are, but they are pervasive for a multitude of reasons. But we are trying to do our best to make sure that in fact that over time that we'll continue to remove those as unique identifiers in American society.

I think anybody who has a Social Security number that's sharing information, of course would have a concern.

So I'm not here as a denier. I'm here to make sure that we can do the best we can. But we also, this is a compliance matter and we need to make sure I can keep both of those hats and hold both of those. His thoughts trying to improve for the future but also making sure that we stay compliant today?

Yeah. And in addition to that, I mean the goal is to try to have only one real ID as well. And so when you're moving across other states, the goal is not to have multiple IDs in your pocket. And so as many as the five pointer information can identify immediately that you are who you say you are, then states are communicating with each other to say I moved to New York and I'm going to become a resident of New York and I go into the DMV office and I say hey, I need to get my real ID here in New York. It's allowing New York to then communicate with California to say that my driver history and all my information will now be housed in New York and not in California anymore. And you know, oddly, as was, a lot of states weren't talking to each other. It wasn't kind of like an honor based system. So the goal is to make sure that we can get that information to New York as an example and that we will not have two IDs that you're not boarding and plane, but two different identifications and that your information be a little bit repetitive, but your information should flow with you to the next state.

I don't believe so because we proposed to start building the system in the current year. So when the budget passed in September and Budget Bill Jr. This was a topic of conversation and the goal at that moment was to.

Uhhuh.

Which, which department? This. This body or which one?

Yeah.

So the federal statute is let's say vague with respect to a particular date. So I have personally spoken with.

Vague with respect to the date you mentioned. Is there a particular hard date? But as I mentioned, you know, California signed an agreement back in 2018 to effectuate the Real ID act and make sure that in fact that we're compliant, including state to state. So the agreement we have with the Department of Homeland Security as well as the Transportation Security Administration is we haven't agreed upon that date, which is the February date that you mentioned. And we're working with AMBA to actually be able to go through the structured testing and all the steps it takes so we can go live on that date. So it's a multi party thing that we've agreed to. Is there a particular statute Set you have to be live on this particular date. No, but that is the date we've been agreed on. We've agreed to. And the question you ask, well, what would happen if we didn't. There's the risk of being out of compliance with, with, with the federal, with the federal law and we could potentially, as the Senator mentioned, we could, you know, have, have chaos at airports and so on. As you know, real ID is the primary identification used at an airport just for most common people to, to get in and out of a, of a transit authority.

Passports are, you know, passports to adoption is around 50 is what I understand at the nation.

I understand. Thank you.

I'm sure from last year and previous times that you're aware that some of us have a big sensitivity towards sharing information, whether it's Social Security security number or if you have an 8060 driver's license. There's, over the years we built up a lot of trust on that front and now there's issues even with voter ID requirements. So this trust is really important, fundamentally at its core important to us. And we need, we may be coming at you with different questions, but we also need you to be perfect proactive with us. If you think there's an issue that would jeopardize the privacy and the information and the trust that we built up, then we expect you and we need you to be to put that on the table.

Well, we didn't ask that question or we didn't ask the right question. Fundamentally, what we're getting at is how to protect the privacy of the Californians. And it's either Social Security or it's 80, 60, it's voter IDs. There's a number of ways, and some of us are very, I don't want to say nervous, but we're looking out for a federal administration that has a very aggressive deportation agenda. We're not going to. We can't participate in something like that. So we expect you and need you to be, you know, fully cooperative and proactive on this issue.

Thank you. Senator Durazo, we're going to this will conclude this issue. We would like to follow up with you probably a little bit more. Please do follow up with the attorney general to make sure they're aware of this request and what's happening. And before we go to the last issue, I want to establish a quorum. So we didn't do that that in the beginning. So let's make sure to do that while everyone is still here. With that, our consultant. Would you please call the roll, Eunice? Senator Richardson? Here. Senator Richardson's here. Senator Durazzo?

Senator Durazo?

Senator Saarto. Senator Sarto is here. Thank you. Thank you very much. That concludes that section. We're now going to go to our last one, which also includes the dmv. First, we're again going to hear from Director Steve Gordon and Mr. Scott from the DMV. And then we have the representatives from the LAO and Department of Finance. Please go ahead.

Thank you.

Okay, Department of Finance, no more comments. All right, thank you with that, Senator Siardo.

I think this project, once completed, does address stitching systems together so you don't have. As I was explaining, system A, trying to talk with system B via paper. So, yes, it does unify many of the systems that are today very disconnected.

Everything we've been working on since I've been at the department is to make our lives easier. Keep things on a mobile device, keep you in at your house and your car. Car on your couch so that you don't. You can do anything you want to do with the DMV from where you are. That's been our objective. Some things are harder than others, but that's the objective.

The vehicle registration. Yes.

All right.

how will this actually help improve that customer. Customer service?

Softball for you.

I'd even add on to that too. I know a lot of the focus is on how it's going to impact our customers or even our employees. You know, more transactions online or having things more simpler. But also any type of legislation wants to introduce a bill, it's going to have a fiscal impact and that eventually would turn into a ledge. BCP with having it tied to the legacy system is very expensive, you know, and sometimes it becomes kind of adversarial back and forth. Well, I really wanted to fix this part. However, it's going to cost x amount With a new system. We're hoping to have cost cost be a lot more minimal if we can and then have it be that much more efficient. So it should be a better release on the MVA as well. You know, when we're looking at the mva, we're not going to add a high cost on a legacy system, whereas if you work on a DXP system, it could be half even, you know, 80% less.

Yeah, so when we started the cost was back in like 2019, 2020 Covid hit that. We had like 60% increase in it. Market costs, inflation, vendor pricing. I mean things have just astronomically gotten more expensive. The cost of living for even most Californians, you could tell, you know, things are a lot more expensive than they were even seven, eight years ago. But when you're dealing with large scale project of this size cost to get a lot more expensive.

Yeah, I asked that because if we approve something like what it was originally five years ago, $388 million. That's a different decision.

And the budget and to look at it and then turn around saying now it's $767 million. So there's got to be a better way of all those things that you said are pretty normal, I mean, except for the pandemic, but everything else is pretty normal. So when you come up with your request for funding this project or that project, it's got to be closer than, you know, half of what or double the amount that you originally requested. We can't function like that as a state just to fear that it's going to be double what you're asking for.

So has the TV series helped you or not?

Senator Durazzo, just one question for me. Last year, the DMV you requested a delay in implementing several pieces of legislation in part large part due to this ongoing IT project. How will the DXP improve the department's ability to implement legislation that you have on the table and allow you to be more agile and responsive to potential improvements in the DMV process.

Thank you. My last question for you, I did sit on the transportation committee a couple weeks ago, and the. We were talking about the ignition lock breathing in with the DUI driving and the federal, the person representing the federal group that funds it said that sometimes they do include it if they're asked. And I said, had they been asked? And they said no. So I just want you to know you have a letter forthcoming to you requesting that you ask. So then, now maybe they'll consider, so we could help with reducing that cost and getting some of their support.

oh, see how fast we are. And you, you know that you got it. I'm impressed.

All right, well, you get, you get a smile for that. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. That concludes the sixth issue. We're now going to move to public comment to ensure that everyone has a chance to be heard. Please limit your comments to one minute. Thank you very much for everyone participating and for the public for your patience having. So with that, we'll have you come over here to the mic to your right, my left. Yes, sir.

with the Identity Project, a national human rights project focused on identity requirements. The point of this budget proposal is to for so called S2S is to

to to the SPECS National ID database operated by amva.

overreaching DHS ultimatum and threat. As with other lawless or suspect DHS threats, it's important not to make that choice without looking first at the implications of both sides. The threat is that the DHS will

right to travel if California doesn't comply with some set of requirements which are

We'd be happy to discuss those in more detail, but I want to highlight a couple of key issues of either

Sir, your time has expired. If you could summarize and then you can always submit your comments to the committee which we will review.

AB60 licenses, by the plain language of

evidence that there's been any investigation of

has successfully pushed back against other lawless DHS threats.

Thank you and thank you for your information. Becca Kramer on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF is likewise extremely concerned about the DMV's plan to participate in the State to State Verification Service pursuant to the Federal Real ID program. Of the very many reasons for concern, I'll focus today on the fact that DMV's plan requires that California's information be uploaded to a database SPECS that is not governed by California or by California laws that protect individual privacy. The DMV's plan is fundamentally flawed because it depends on sharing information with AMVA, a private non government entity. AMBA is a 501c3 organization. Government actors are bound by constitutions governed by due process and other rule of law norms. AMVA is not. AMVA is carrying out a government task of identification verification, but is not meaningfully transparent. Many documents about SPECS database and the S2S system are not available for the public in the first place. We therefore do not know who will have access to California's information or driver histories. What restrictions, if any, bind those who participate in the S2S system as to how they can use California's personal information. Please summarize.

How often federal agencies have received the information and what risks California information faces once it's uploaded and we lose control of it. We respectfully urge you to obtain complete and public answers to these and other questions before beginning to even consider embarking on this one way journey of transferring our information to other states. Thank you. Yes ma'.

Good afternoon Chair members. Symphony Barbee on behalf of the aclu, California Action here to respectfully oppose the budget change proposal in issue five to implement the state to state verification system for real id. The disclosure of personal information that will be shared with federal authorities goes against the very protections California has worked so hard to ensure. The state to state system is not immune to breach. This information is shared with non state actors creating an opportunity for massive harm as other states that are participating will also have access to this information, including states that are hostile to California's robust protections. For these reasons, we urge the committee to reject this budget change proposal. Thank you. Thank you. That was excellent. 42 seconds.

DMV systems upgrades, we think they're long overdue. Wanted to say so.

Thank you. Good afternoon committee members via FICOA Coalition for Clean Air echoing my colleague's comments that investments in active transportation can save over 200 lives, reduce GHG emissions by almost 100 metric tons and improve public health, accessibility and reduce transportation cost cost burdens for all Californians. And thus we requested that legislature allocate an additional 200 million to the Active Transportation Program over the next five years. The ETP program has funded over 800 projects since its inception, 85% of which go to directly benefit disadvantaged communities. At the same time, this program was cut last cycle and had only slightly above 150 million to spend on almost 300 applications that it requires received. And this is why the Sacramento Bee article recently described the ATP program as being just a hair less competitive than admission rates for Harvard University. And we asked for additional funds for the program to ensure it provides long term benefits for Californians such as improving air quality, reducing climate emissions, reducing vehicle collisions, reducing traffic, and providing transportation alternatives for those who cannot drive or cannot afford a vehicle. Thank you. Thank you. 50 seconds.

Resource Center, GSEN on issue 5.

that are legal today and not legal tomorrow, unfortunately, because the administration has pulled

So we share our concerns related to issue five, and we would love to work with the committee and other stakeholders

right for all Californians.

Thank you. Excellent. 30 seconds. Good afternoon.

Excuse me. Would like to align my comments with the previous speaker as well as express appreciation for both the Chair and Senator Durazzo's questions related to the protection of this very sensitive information.

this federal government has been hostile and so any opening up of data sharing is something that we are concerned about and look forward to working with the committee as well as the administration to ensure that there are guardrails.

Thank you very much. 32 seconds. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Anieli Martin with the California Immigrant Policy center also want to align my comments with the previous two colleagues. California has taken important steps to protect the privacy of DMV information and prevent it from falling into the hands of ice. However, California's entry into the state to state verification services puts this progress in jeopardy. We have strong concerns about the sharing of personal information such as such, such as Social Security numbers, the Department of Homeland Security or other federal agencies could attempt to access this information that could identify individuals as immigrants and be used for immigration enforcement purposes. We have seen recently many attempts by DHS seeking information held by cms, the IRS and other agencies in order to execute their mass deportation agenda. We need protections in place now and we look forward to working with the committee. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

the Steersafe partnership here to highlight the

We appreciate the discussion today regarding the

functionality and tracking for drivers who consistently choose to drive dangerously. Speeding dramatically increases both the likelihood of a crash and the severity of injuries when collisions occur. ISA offers an evidence based tool that

detect the posted speed limit and prevent a vehicle from exceeding it. Thank you for the opportunity to share this information and for your continued commitment

Thank you. Thank you. I lost my script there. Having heard from all members of the public. Members, are there any additional questions or comments? All right, seeing none. Thank you to all the individuals who participated today in the public to testimony. If you were not able to testify or if you have any additional information you wanted to submit, please do so in writing to the Budget and Fiscal Review Committee or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are important to us and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing records. Thank you everyone for your participation. We have concluded the agenda for today's hearing. The Senate Budget Subcommittee Committee Number five on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, labor and Transportation is now adjourned.