June 15, 2026 · Budget · 25,884 words · 35 speakers · 138 segments
Thank you. 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 going to 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 going to 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 2027 and 2027-28 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 legislatures 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 five 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 million in forgivable loans for distressed hospitals and 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 child care slots and adds 22,770 new child care slots in 26-27. It provides additional funding for affordable housing and the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Program, or HAP. 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 going to ask the Vice Chair, Senator Nilo, 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 as 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 200% on a per-person basis from $2,300 to $6,300, and total state employees up over 50%. percent. 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 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. Zacharias' 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. So 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 10th 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 going to begin with Gabe Pettig, 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 also frees up resources So in total there about 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 a 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 child care, 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 child care slots and actually provides additional funding to support nearly 23,000 additional slots. 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, HAP program, 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 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 a high-level summary of the provisions and the budget condition under the package, so I'll stop there and pass.
Thank you. I appreciate your comments. And then we'll move to Erica Lee from the Department of Finance.
Good morning, Chair Laird, Vice Chair Nilo, and members of the Budget Committee. Eric Lee with the Department of Finance. And thank you for the opportunity to provide a response to AB 109, the legislature's budget, 426-27. And first, I would like to say that the administration appreciates that 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 out-year 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. Pettick 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. I 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 9. So if there's our quorum. Please call the roll. Senator Slaird. Here.
Nilo.
Here. Archuleta. Blakespear. Here. Cabaldon. Choi. Dorosso. Here. Grove. Pertato. McNerney. Here. Menjabar. Ochoa Bogues. Here. Perez. Reyes. Here. Here. Richardson? Here. Sayardo? Smallwood Cuevas? Here. Weber Pearson? Here. We have a quorum. We have established a quorum. That completed the comments to the committee We going to go to the committee for questions and comments 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 line. Okay, Senator Durazo, is there anybody else that wants to make a comment or question? Senator Smallwood Quayles. Pardon? I'll put myself in. Okay. And 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. 80% 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 knew 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 agreement But I don think those are an eligibility as far as Medi Those are like you right the dental part of it but not overall Medi-Cal eligibility. Yeah, and I would point to some of the things that were included in the May revision were indirect response to the impacts at the federal level with H.R. 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're 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 H.R.1 that the package conforms to. But as Ms. Lee 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.
Great. Okay.
You're right. the eligibility, the requirements that are put in by H.R.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.
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 bills, 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. are 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
Laura Ayala, Department of Finance. Approximately 1.5 million to 2 million individuals currently estimated to be with an unsatisfactory immigration status in 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 emergency or enhanced case management and community supports, 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 million, not being redirected into restoring access to medical eligibility?
The proposal reflects the current estimate of utilization that individuals are obtaining. Any reduction in costs are 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 was 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, well, 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 million for emergency services for people losing Medi-Cal due to H.R. 1. how many people will lose coverage entirely and is $125 million. How did you arrive at that 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're investing for indigent care, but the May revision estimated that approximately 1.3 million individuals will lose coverage by full implementation associated with H.R. 1. We would need to defer back to the committee and subchairs on how the amount was arrived at.
Okay.
Okay. This budget bill allocates $213 million 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 HR1. have you modeled the aggregate fiscal impact on counties from this budget and
HR1?
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 HR1. And we arrived at that uncompensated care to hospitals would be 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. Those are my questions.
Thank you very much. Then we'll go to Senator Smallwood Cuevas.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Senator Blake Spear 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, our PT, 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 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 grave 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. One is a Democrat, 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, 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, you know, what that looks like. And I heard part of the question asked already, but I want to be clear about 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 HR1.
And of those individuals do we know how many are currently working I don have that answer We have some estimates of the share overall of the Medi population that works I don recall the exact percentage off 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 not clear.
And just maybe there's some other analysis conducted on the impact of coverage loss on working families, mainly who may not be able to afford the 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 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 billion, 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 and people falling out of eligibility for the CalFresh program Thank you for that And I also thinking about those workers who are in these very precarious employment realities
And I'm thinking about populations where we often see are the last hired, first fired folks who are in positions, entry level we see has chilled in terms of 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. 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 HR1.
I would defer back to the committee in terms of if 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 those 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 unemployment and these arduous eligibility requirements are likely to lose their care. So, you know, and I have to bring in this question about hospitals because I know the chair has talked a lot about distressed hospitals. And, you know, 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 the additional funds that were provided, that's part of the legislature's two-party plan. I think as part of the May revision, there was language to allow up to another $50 million 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 speak with the department on the types of information that they collecting from hospitals in order to see who is eligible or what hospitals are actually eligible for those dollars. So that's at $250 million for public hospitals.
So I was speaking more about the current hospital, Distress Hospital Program, but 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 that $500 million was needed for public and distressed hospitals.
Sure. This is roughly half of that funding.
And so 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 were going to close within 10 days. So there are two pots in the legislature's package. I believe one is $190 million for the distressed hospital program, which is what Ms. Lee was speaking to and under the framework originally proposed by the administration a couple of years ago for that program. 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 particular number you cited of $500 million, but across those two buckets it does get quite close to it.
Okay.
So, I mean, we're getting close, but 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 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 faced with the structural deficit. Are there specific actions in this budget that permanently address the structural deficit?
One before us today.
Well, the one before us today, I guess just to offer some perspective on also some of Senator Durazo's comments as well, that when the state is facing a structural deficit, there are these very difficult choices before the legislature, partly reflecting the fact that a lot of what the state does is provide services to these communities with low income and disadvantage that you're referring to. In this particular package before you, I'll just point out again that there is the assumption of $5.5 billion 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 relative to the May revision. And so 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 governor's, you know, I would go back to, I think, to the May revision. which started in January facing an estimated $20 billion structural deficit, and under the May revision package, it was reduced to about $10 billion, and it did include a number of ongoing reductions over the years. But in addition, some revenue increases, broadening the sales tax base and limiting corporate tax credit access. And so those things helped generate about $2 billion of additional revenue 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 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 health care reductions included in this budget are being made before the legislature has sufficiently completed its discussion on revenue. I'm sorry.
Yeah, there is no revenue.
The revenue is assumed.
Those revenue solutions are not in this budget. 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. Yes.
Okay.
Well, my mother always says something about assume, but I'm not going to remember it here. But I say that to say, 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 H.R.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 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 going to be some revenue, whether it be fair share so that the costs are not being shifted from major corporations on to taxpayers for covering their employees, whether it be the governor's solutions and proposals. We don't have those things before us. So we need some assurances that Californians, that today's budget decisions will not result in just 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 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 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 going to result in people losing their lives Thank you very much I will move to Senator Blakespear and Senator Richardson is on deck Okay, thank you.
I want to start by thanking the chair and the committee staff for their work in putting this budget together and also want to thank the 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 $36.5 billion 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 want to make a few statements about. And I am grateful to have been able to serve on Budget Sub 2 about natural resources this year. And I'm grateful to have been appointed to that position. I'm supportive of funding at least $900 million for Round 7 of HAP. These resources will help local governments move people off the streets and into housing. $1 billion would be better. I'm concerned about the elimination of the commitment to fund HAP Round 8, 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 to be successful. I'll move now to transit and GGRF. I'm supportive of the $418 million allocation for the Transit and Inner City Rail Capital Program and the $814 million for the state and federal mass transit program. This provides critical funding to sustained 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 $100 million to $50 million. 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 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 Medical Center which is in my district that serves communities with limited access and better prepares them for the impacts of H 1 This year 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 Court 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 H.R. 1. The inclusion of $125 million 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, Mr. 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 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, 3.1 million. In 2010, that rose to 3.5 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, and I'm just giving an example of seniors, I'm not talking about the rest of California, from 3.1 million seniors to now 5.7 million seniors, it's a different level of care that's required. and so we need to make sure that I can see maybe newscasters doing their stories based upon limited data that they have but 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 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, were making over $100,000. Now we've lost several thousands of jobs where people were making a decent living, could start anew, were 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 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, Lamone, 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 roadmap in our subcommittees. I happen to represent subcommittee 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 as 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 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 going to close with my general comments more specifically regarding sub-5 and sub-3. I'm not going to 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. I wanted to speak to the judgeships. There's a report, if anyone is in request of it, dating back to November 22nd. And the title of that report is The Need for the New Judgeships in the Superior Court. And I just want to reiterate for the record that 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 an underjudgeship of 22 and San Bernardino 30. That's more than 50% of the needed judgeships, and many of those counties, 17, only are short 1, 2, 3, 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 will 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 Medi-Cal 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 Medi-Cal. But then there are other public hospitals or private public hospitals where maybe they're serving 85% of Medi-Cal, 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 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 here to attest as one of those subchairs that tremendous effort was made to do that And I thank you Chairman and also Senate Pro Tem Limone 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, Mr. Chair. As a member of this Senate Budget Committee and chair of Budget Subcommittee 2, 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 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 million dollars 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'm proud to have championed in the past, and I am glad that we are including $50 million 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 HR1. 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 going to 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 suffer from this the most are the indigent. I do want to bring specific attention to the legislature's investment of $20 million in general fund support for new judgeships. This is something that my colleague from Sub 1 has mentioned. This is support for new judgeships, and it will grow to 44 million 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 2.2 million 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 reality. Justice delayed is justice denied. And for so many not only in the Inland Empire but in other counties in the state of California where they are short judges and their caseload is higher it has been a reality The justice delayed was justice denied I do want to express my sincere appreciation to our budget chair, specifically, for her leadership in this regard. To 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 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 GGRF, 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. A couple of weeks ago, CARB voted to approve amendments to the Cap and Invest program that will significantly cut the amount of funding available for GGRF. I remain very concerned about the impact of CARB's decision. To be clear, this rulemaking 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 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 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, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. We'll move to Senator Cabaldon, and Senator Choi is on deck.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Budgeting is, by definition, painful and hard. It is one part of the work that we do here that is constrained, that necessarily involves a million trade-offs, which is why this is my 12th state budget I think I've been involved in, both either as a staffer or now as a member or in the administration, plus 23 budgets. in City Hall where I served previously. And they're all basically the same flow. The budget proposal gets announced in January. And we all say we hate this, but it's an important start. Then we pass our version of the budget and we say here's a budget we really like. Then we have 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 budgeting. of budgeting 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 thing this year 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. I often say in my district, I know we'd say to 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 meet all of the needs 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 H.R.1, the one big awful bill, is eviscerating support for basic needs in California. Medi-Cal, CalFresh Food, and health care being top of the list. And although California is big and powerful and potent, we are not bigger and more powerful or richer than 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 the communities that I represent as more and more of the provisions of H.R.1 kick in and we see the carnage that that legislation 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 entirely, 100 percent at the feet of the White House and the Congress for passing that in the first place. And so I appreciate the work that's been done by the administration and by our leadership and especially by the budget subcommittees to try to do everything that we can. We could spend 100 percent of the California state budget on Medi-Cal. It would not be hard. We could spend 100 percent of the budget on K-12 education. It would not be challenging. I could make that up right now. I mean, but we can't do that because we also have other critical services for the people of California, the basic governance of maintaining highway patrol 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 do have to have a budget that balances. This budget, as I said, this is the round where we normally say I kind of like this one. I am very happy to support AB 109 today. Given the constraints that we're facing from the federal government and the challenges 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 heartbreaking. And I'm very grateful that 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 goes a long way in accomplishing that. the deferrals on some of the even more painful cuts to health care services for the poorest of Californians, those deferrals are important and very much appreciate the leadership that's been taken there. And then for the Budget Subcommittee 4 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 left, we worked really hard to assure that there are issues. real investments in affordable housing and in preventing and ending homelessness in the state. And 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 I would write. I know 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. I very much appreciate the leadership of the chair and of our own leadership in order to advance this. And I also hope that as we go to take this next step, that the administration sees the work that we've been doing together on the structural deficit. that I also want to say, I know we're not voting on the trailers, but the administration's proposals around revenues and trying to address the structural deficit from both the spending and the revenue perspective, however we deal with the details, I'm very appreciative that the administration is trying to meet us, you know, meet us at the table on that. Look forward to those happening as well. But now our task is to assure that once this measure passes both houses, that we are able to bring the governor on board and be able to craft a budget that, while never perfect, represents 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 fight another day. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. Senator Choi and Senator Ciarto is on deck. And I have two more people.
Thank you, Chair. I would just, excuse me for a second, just remind committee members we have to take public testimony, and I'm told there's 50 people in the hallway that want to give public testimony. So just to keep that in mind time-wise. Okay, I will make it short. As one of the only four minority Republican committee members, I need to make my position known on this budget. that is being proposed. The supermajority claims this budget is balanced, but that claim is simply not true. This budget assumes revenues that are approximately $5 billion 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. California deserve a transparent budget process. Unfortunately, this year's process has fallen short of that standard. As a member of budget subcommittee number two on resources environmental protection and energy I was unable to support several cap and investment 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 No. 2, 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 all kinds of regulations. 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 pump. So, therefore, I won't be able to support this bill.
Thank you very much for your comments. Go to Senator Sciarto 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 Distress Hostile Loan Program is supportable. The additional $50 million for Prop 36, while it falls way short of what is needed, certainly anything towards that end is supportable. The $3.6 billion for court construction and $20 million for new judgeships. I just want to thank my colleague on Sub 5 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 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 key component to that is the process, and the process can't be done. We have 85,000 people that are backlogged trying to get 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 HAP funding, $900 million for HAP funding, that's another thing that's very supportable. One of the things that we been able to see now is that there are some communities that are very successful with this million 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 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 their taxes as well. So 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 million 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 million more, this is in addition to the billion that they've already spent. 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 some roads. We have interchanges. We have roadways. We have dangerous highways out there that this $225 million can fix. They have a program for replacing their equipment. 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 as our goal for Caltrans, the cleanest fleet in the nation, when we're 49th in building roads and maintaining the roads that we have, that's ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous. The $1.9 million seems pretty trivial. But when you start thinking of all things that aren't being funded, $1.9 million 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 refineries. All it's really done is reduce the amount of refineries in California. So that's something else that we're wasting money on. So there are several other things. I did want to get to the HR1 comments a little bit. I have a question for the administration in regards to the health and human services budget. Is the federal government, how much are they decreasing this year in our health and human services budget that is causing the consternation of all my colleagues here? what's the decrease in the amount?
Laura Yala, 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 H.R. 1, we're losing $11 billion by 2930. 2930. But this year alone we have a budget that is billion more that the federal government is putting into Health and Human Services Is that correct
That is, well, 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 programs that we have that draw down federal funds. So yes, our general fund budget has been increasing and so our federal funds budget. So the federal government has increased the amount of money going into our general fund by $14 billion. 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 1.3 million people that are going to lose coverage out of the 14 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 means for them to have Medi-Cal? Is that all of them? The 1.3 million individuals, to clarify, 44,000 are estimated to lose medical in 26-27 and then by 29-30 up to 1.3 million. And that includes individuals that are subject to the new HR1 requirements, which are the work and community engagement and the eligibility redeterminations that are every six months. and that could include disenrolling for multiple reasons. It could include. There's a lot of different reasons, and a lot of it is the inaction by people who 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, 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 I don't know that that's too much to ask for our California taxpayers, especially, who are footing a tremendous bill. Medi-Cal costs their $223 billion a year. 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 H.R. 1 also did increase our salt limit, which was a big issue with everybody. So there's one good thing that my colleagues fail to mention is that your salt increase is going up from $10,000 to $40,000. So, yeah, that's part of your taxes. 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 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 million that 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 want to do that, that's great. Their parents can administer, they can donate money to a fund for that. But in place of that, we have, to my colleague's comment earlier about our senior population, we have a senior center down in Riverside that is in dire need of upgrading their facility. It's fallen down around them. They can't help all the seniors that they're supposed to be helping. They need $3 million, but instead we're going to spend $5 million 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 that I represent's CRAW. 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 one of those things that makes the budget not supportable. It makes it seem like we don't want to 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 DeRossos. Let me begin on a positive note that I do support AB 109, and I support the chair and Chair Gabriel and the work he's done in all the subcommittees. As we heard Senator Richardson point out, the intense background that we had to do 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 Subbudget 1 that I'm in, I'm so proud of the fact that we've taken care of our educational system and 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 why there million for that deferred maintenance million 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, the Proposition 98 funding that we're going to do, and also $5 million for Save the Children. but going over into our protective services for the child protection, $20 million there. It is necessary, $50 million 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 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 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 Durazzo, Senator Perez is on deck. Thank you. Mr. Chair, 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 this question was going to 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 109 but not asking questions about $177 if it assumes $177 is part of the budget. So somebody could explain that. We have a three-party agreement on the revenues. They're not eligible until 11 o'clock 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 it's not part of this conversation. 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... We'll have the information before we hear AB 177 later in the week. Okay. It doesn't feel right if that's an important part of approving this budget, but 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 just want to end by just the way I feel is this budget is saving money by removing poor people from Medi-Cal 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 H.R. 1. They get to wait. I don't even know how that, if and how something like that's going to happen. But low-paid workers remain on state-subsidized care. So there are very strong, conflicting issues here. Thank you. Thank you very much And just to note somebody pointed out to me that 177 is the fair share thing that has no revenue in it So we 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 Bogues on deck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I just want to note, I think there's been so much work that's been put into this budget process. And I first of all 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 education, in our K-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 want to make sure that I highlight, and 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 Act, AB 177. And, you know, it's significant that we're considering a proposal like this. I think I've heard across the board, you know, for 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 250 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 want to 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-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 just really want to 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 balancing our budget So again thank you to Chair Laird Thank you to our pro tem and I happy to be voting aye on this Thank you very much for your comments. We're going to go to Senator Ochoa Bogue, and then Senator Nilo is on deck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to publicly thank our chair, Senator Laird, and our vice chair, Senator Nilo, along with the other chairs of the committee. So I especially want to highlight Senator Richardson and her lead on the courtships and judgeships and courtships, the courthouses and the ability to fund both the maintenance of the building. We are not funding courtships. I heard that's highlighted. That's right. Everyone's on their own. I'll sign up for that. Sorry. I'm sorry, keep going. That's all right. But, yes, you're actually right. So, for courthouses and the judgeships in San Bernardino-Verset County, I so, so deeply appreciate your help and your advocacy on that end, ma'am. I also would like to just highlight and really thank my chair for or in education committee as well as my other member, our newest member there with Senator Chaletta there. But I really am so grateful for the investments in education and prioritizing education in our state for many of the programs that we have. And I'm not going to go into the details because there's a lot. 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 your advocacy. I do have a question with regards to, oh, I do want to highlight also, you know, when we talk about transparency and accountability in funding and so forth, how, you know, as a super minority in the legislature, we often talk about the fact that not everything is always as transparent as we think it 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. I don't even know how this came into our budget here as a priority, But I do want to 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 onto our budget, including a $5 million for UCLA's voting rights project and a $1.5 million to my school, UC Santa Barbara's Blum Center on Poverty, Inequality and Democracy. we have an opportunity to discuss these investments. I'm curious to know how these were prioritized and how they came into our budget because we do deserve a little bit of transparency as to how this came to be. So those are two items that would like to be addressed. And another item has to do with the 2-1-1, $2 million 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 HR1, what is the state's role for resource navigation services like 211, and has 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 211 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 hear a little bit of feedback on. And lastly, thank you to Senator Blacksphere for Prop 36 comments online on that end. So thank you so much for everyone involved in these conversations. Thank you very much. We're going to 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 L.A. 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 Medi-Cal changes by H.R. 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 hundred million dollars, 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 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 to POP 36. There is still woefully inadequate funding for that initiative, particularly substance abuse 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 costs 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-5. 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, 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 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 in relation to overall cases. 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 that, once again, just in case anybody was out of the room, we expect 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 million over the May revise on hospitals in this budget. We're trying to address it. Now, to public comment, I originally thought I was going to limit to a minute, and if I limited to a minute, it would take us to our floor session, and we can't do that. So I'm going to limit the public comment. We're going to cut it off if it's still going at 1 o'clock. We ask that you limit yourself to a minute. If you can limit yourself to less, it will 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 going to begin public comment Thank you Good morning Good morning I Kate Ladish 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 Soto of L.A. 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 for institutionalization or homelessness or even death. In that context, I extend heartfelt thanks for rejecting the governor's harmful proposed cuts to IHSS. 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 request support for AB 109. Thank you. Thank you very much. You're a minute on the dot. Right. Welcome. Thank you. on reforming an equitable 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 in 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 Khalid Rashid. I'm from Stanislaus County. I'm from the LTSS for All Coalition, and 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 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. Mr. Chair, Chris McKaylee, 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 billion annually to repay that debt to the UI fund Thank you Mr 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 IS. 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 20 years of hard work. Please continue to protect IS 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 want to 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 want to 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 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... Thank you very much. You've reached a minute. We appreciate your comments. I appreciate you, sir. Okay, next speaker. Welcome. Okay. Good afternoon, Grace Glazer on behalf of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence. I want to thank the Senate budget for including $50 million to backfill the Loss and Federal Victims of Crime Act FOCA funding, as well as the recommendation for $12.5 million for trauma recovery centers and the recommendation to close an additional prison. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Thank you. Danica Rodormel from Whole 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 148, the LA Public Defenders Union for the inclusion of the Jails to Jobs Workforce 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 GRIP Training Institute for the inclusion of the right grant funding. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Vanessa Kahina on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians. We thank you for your hard work to preserve access to the state's most vulnerable members in mitigating some of the harm of H.R. 1. We also appreciate continued dialogue on the menopause trailer bill language and adoption of placeholder trailer bill 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 of vision and compromiso, we hope to see the support that CBOs need to keep Californians enrolled in Medi-Cal due to the cuts to H.R.1. And on behalf of CalPACE, thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good morning. Mark Farouk on behalf of the California Hospital Association. First, just wanted to thank the... And you can pull the mic up toward you. Thank you. Again, Mark Farouk on behalf of the California Hospital Association. I want to thank the legislature for inclusion of the funding for distressed hospitals. I want to 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, and also concerns related to the software tax proposal, given that health care providers are heavy users of medical software. Thank you. Thank you very much. Chair and members, Kathy Mossberg on behalf of the local health plans. I 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 want to 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. Mr. Chair and members, Michael Pimtel 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 3 GGRF programs. We appreciate that included within AB 109 is placeholder language to suggest revisiting and a reconsideration of SB 840. 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 million for the ZETCP Zero Emission Transit Capital Program planned for investment in fiscal year 2627. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Hi. Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties. CSAC really values the partnership of the legislature and the commitment to prioritizing resources to support counties in delivering services that communities rely on. We're supportive of many elements in the legislative budget agreement on HR1. Really appreciate the investments that will help counties protect the safety net. This includes around $450 million for county eligibility work that will help people keep Medi-Cal and CalFresh, $125 million for the creation of an alternative to indigent 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 really appreciative of the Senator leadership on HAP and providing additional funding getting up to million in this current year I do continue to support the earlier Senate action for intent language for 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 will help across multiple county departments. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Mr. Chair, members, Sarah Flox, 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 Medi-Cal program and the health care safety net without asking and identifying which corporations have workers that are on Medi-Cal. 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. Mr. Chair, Brennan Rapicki 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. Mr. Chair, I appreciate you acknowledging our concerns around JGRF expenditures. as you finalize JJF expenditures, ask that you fully fund the Tier 3 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, I urge you to fight for the full funding, the $215 million for Medi-Cal and $245 million 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 DHCS proposal on county performance measures, We want to restore the existing underlying accountability structure that's much more effective. So we support AB 109 and the entire package. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Kelly Brooks on behalf of the urban counties of California as well as the counties of Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Ventura, Riverside, Calusa, Plumas, and Alpine. Thank you for your HR1 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 DiaperBanks, thank you for the $16.5 million and the recognition of the role the DiaperBanks play in the delivery of diapers to children of all ages. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Mr. 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 HR1 cuts especially as the county faces a billion estimated annual impact Specifically we support the 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 the $900 million allocation for HAP Round 7. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Peter Hansel here on behalf of AARP California and its 3.2 million members, and we want to 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 addressed. We appreciate the legislature's commitment to 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 want to 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 H.R. 1 brings. When fully implemented, H.R. 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 members. Michelle Gibbons with the County Health Executives Association of California, representing local health departments. I want to express appreciation for the investments to maintain public health information technology systems and disease intervention specialists. I also want to thank you for the mitigation strategies for County HR1 impacts, including the $125 million for the state alternative to indigent care. This would support state-funded emergency Medi-Cal 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 aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. My name is Dr. Chetziar. I'm the CEO of Cardeo 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 a 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 Medi-Cal 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 legislature is making important structural improvements so that essential home services that keep people with chronic care needs at home are accessible to Medi enrols across the state This includes unsheltered individuals with complex health needs children with great 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 our most valuable community members. Thank you very much. You've hit a minute. Thank you, guys. Welcome. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Keely O'Brien with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. First, I wanted to thank the legislature for the agreement to approve $5 million to automate the California Food Assistance Program, or CFAP Plus changes. This prepares California to assist people losing CalFresh due to HR1 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 for providing the necessary funding to support CalFood, the CalFresh Outreach Network, the Diaper Bank Network, and for assisting counties with dealing with H.R. 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 the 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 California's 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 want to speak, and everybody's been really good. You haven't taken the full minute, but I'm going until 1 o'clock, so if you can be less than a minute, we'll get to everybody else. Welcome. Good afternoon, Yasmeen Pellett on behalf of Justice and 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 and 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 Way 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 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 Daniel Rodriguez with Immigrants Rising here very much in support of the funding for the Dream Resource Centers. And also ask that in the coming days, you consider including in the final budget a reinvestment in the Social Entrepreneurs for Economic Development Initiative, known as CEE, 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. Welcome. Good afternoon. Jessica Hernandez-Reyes on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity. We're 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 Workforce 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 see some 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, Mr. Chair and members. Amy Costa here on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, the California District Attorneys Association, and the Chief Probation Officers. We want to 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 wraparound services required for success for people who need to complete their treatment programs. Separately, on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers, I want to note that we remain concerned that pretrial is not funded. Thank you. Thank you very much. Chair, members, Jael Dent, as 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 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, Mr. Chair. Charlotte Neal, representative of Child Care Providers United, on the value of providers' work by offering us half the amount. It's the legislators saying our work is only half 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 costs. COLA doesn't even keep up with the inflation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. My name is Horace Turner, child care provider representing child care. United, it's an insult. It's unacceptable for the legislature to join the budget to create two-tier COLA that delivers and devalues the discount of work the family and child care providers do in early educator. 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 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 $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 Yvonne Bejar, Chartered Educator of Sacramento, the CCCB. 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 are taking home $7 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 Turner from Stanislaus County. I'm a child care provider from CCPU. So child care providers are united in our call to the legislature to fully fund the deliver on the 44 slats promised in the 2021 budget prioritizing flexible vouchers slats Families across California are struggling to access care due to the child care the source created by rates so low that providers cannot keep their doors open At the same time a lack of flexible options for the SLATs that are available prevents families from accessing the care that best suits their needs. So funding SLATs 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 Benahini with CCPU. I'm located right here Sacramento, I'd like to talk about the under 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 costs more than that. So with this 2% sent cola on property rates, they 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. Increasing slots without funding family child care 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 afternoon. My name is Jessica Magdaleno. I am representing child care providers through CCPU. And by offering us half the increase, are they saying our work is worth only half as much? Everyday child care 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 their children. Child care is essential. Invest in providers. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good afternoon. Gabriela Chavez with United Domestic Workers. First of all, we want to thank you to the Senate for their strong leadership. This was an incredible, difficult budget year, and we truly appreciate your commitment for supporting California's in your decision-making. We deeply appreciate the Senate rejecting all cuts to IHSS, strengthening the medical acid tests. 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 making a more equitable approach by requiring corporations to pay their fair share. On child care, thank you for the continued investment in child care 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 continues. 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 supportive services We also appreciate delaying the lower asset limit for people with disabilities and seniors who use Medi $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 of Transformative Programming Works. Just want to 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 will be in the trailer bills. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hello, Sam Wilkinson with In 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 health care, we'd like to align our comments with Justice in 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, child care 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 child care programs to close nor force child care 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 legislators' state budget proposal. And you've reached a minute. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good afternoon, Chair and members. J.C. Lee 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 want to 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. Welcome. Hi, Mr. Chair. My name is Christopher Bennett of the CNEPA. The DDS Person Center Services and regional center operations runs on finances and state budgets. And for you to know, to protect our health care from cuts, the first set of big corporations proposal requires state to identify steps to protecting Californians with disabilities from congressional funding cuts We prefer to be funded without being cut. How can we thrive like other Californians from 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, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras on behalf of Fullwell. We are appreciative of the state budget, the agreement that's going before you addressing economic hardships. However, we are deeply disappointed with the budget agreement that did not include the cow fresh fruit and vegetable EBT program. Since 2023, the program has served close to 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 million burn rate and is scheduled to shut down June 30th of 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, Mr. Chair and members. Wendy Mitchell on behalf of LA Metro, we'd like to echo the comments of the California Transit Association. And thank you, particularly Chair Laird, for your placeholder language on the GGRF money. LA Metro alone will lose $50 million in the LCTOP funding. And TIRCP money is actually used for matching federal funds, so it will be a double loss. And this, we feel, was a commitment made in the last year relative to the GGRF. And so we would encourage funding moving forward. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Beth Malnowska, the SCA of California. On behalf of our 750,000 workers across many SCA locals, on behalf of the Unrigged 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 All coalition, strongly support the delays in most harmful Medi-Cal cuts facing immigrant communities and rejecting many of the Governor Newsom's proposed May revised cuts. We're particularly grateful for the maintenance of the current Medi-Cal acid test limit until July 1, 2027. Additionally, we want to align our comments with CHIAC on behalf of the Indigent Care Alternative Program, meeting folks on Medi-Cal, fee-for-service, emergency-only services as part of a pilot for two years. Additionally, we want to align ourselves with the public hospitals and dedicated public hospital funding. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good morning, Chair and Mr. Chair and members. Diego Samayoa, policy intern with Ms. Abeda, the group. Here on behalf of Central American Resource Center, I'm going to echo the comments of our colleagues from 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 stronger rules in place that protect all Californians. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Welcome. Tiffany Hogan. Chair and members, Tiffany Mock on behalf of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals. We oppose what we believe is the manipulation of education funding with the unconstitutional underfunding by creating a $3.9 billion 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 urge you 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 and members. with the Association of California School Administrators. We continue to remain strongly opposed to withholding Proposition 98 and the proposal to move privately operated preschool into Proposition 98. Withholding these funds creates uncertainty for schools and students in moving California State Preschool Program into Proposition 98. Not only adds to that uncertainty, but would also make the program compete with existing TK-312 priorities. Additionally, ACCESS supports the Paid Pregnancy Disability LEAP proposal, but as currently proposed, it excludes other LEA types like community-funded districts and necessary small schools recommend that the proposal be structured as a reimbursement program rather than funded through LCFF. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Eric Dowdy with the California Dental Association. We want to thank the Senate very much for protecting the Prop 56 Medi-Cal dental rates, and we look forward to working with you on this issue next year. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. Good afternoon, members and chair. My name is Lourdes Alarcón. I'm with Parent Voices California, and I'm here to advocate for. Thank you first for your 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 child care providing. I also wanted to ask for the fair pay for educators because I'm an educator myself. And also that means the cost of living adjustment. And also ask for the increasing and the safety net 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 child care and also increased providers' COLA to cover the rising costs for the child cares. centers and to thank you and adopt all the revenue solutions to hold wealthy corporates accountable and support basic needs programs for all the children. And also, can you add to your talking points today that child care is education and education is care for support for California state preschool and funding returns to Prop 98 Childcare is part of the 98 and 14 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 Parent Voices, and I would like to echo my friends who thanked 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 98 guarantee. Childcare was part of Prop 98 for 14 years, longer than it's been out. Please put it back on 98, Childcare's education. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Eduardo Martinez here on a couple of items. First, on behalf of Ultimate Health Services, I want to 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 want to thank you for the delay in cuts to dental provider rates via Prop 56. I also want to shout out Senator Mendivar 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 for the Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund and urge the legislature to 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 want to thank you for restoring funding at the Commission for Behavioral Health for the Innovation Partnership Fund and for Behavioral Health Advocacy Contracts. We'd also like to thank you for the $900 million for Round 7 of the Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Program. 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 reserve 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. I want to say thank you for the support you've shown for public transit over the past few months and urge your support to continue to fight to address the issues with the Tier 3 funding in the Cap and Invest program as well as the Zero Emission Transit Capital Funding Program. That's it. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good afternoon, Mr. 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 want to express our thanks for the $1 billion, but also your intention to have the program implemented with fidelity to the existing framework and also to provide for regional technical assistance. The second item is for universal pre-kindergarten. We'd like to thank you for the legislature's version and providing funding for that still new program and providing us the ability to support the new programs both the early education training development and also the planning and implementation grants And lastly we like to thank you for the educator workforce programs that you provided robust funding for And we particularly want to thank you for addressing the needs of teachers who wish to become principals. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Oh, and align myself with Prop 98. Okay. Thank you. Welcome. Chair and members, Alex Torres here on behalf of the Thermalito Water and Sewer District. We appreciate the proposition for funding in the 26-27 budget package, the allocations details to be worked out. As the discussions move forward, we respectfully urge consideration of funding for the Concow Reservoir Project. This is a community that was devastated by the campfire, continues to experience loss of nearly a year's worth of drinking water. As the need for the project grows, the cost also grows, but hopeful to raise awareness for this project, continue the conversations, and see if we can get something done there. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Welcome. Holly from Media de Jesus with Lighthouse Public Affairs here today on behalf of Habitat for Menendee, California. We're very appreciative of the funding and some of the investment in the homelessness and rental housing programs, but noticeably absent is any funding for homeownership in this year's budget. We are hoping that the final budget will include some funding for especially the CalHome program, which is the only state program that produces new units and preserves new ownership units. So this program is officially out of funding. There will be no, it's not just pausing funding. There is no new money left in the CalHOME program. So we urge all of you to, and hopefully the Assembly will follow the direction of the Senate, which is to include CalHOME in the final budget. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I'm Christina DeCaro representing the California Library Association. We just want to thank the Senate, Senate President Pro Tem, Chair Laird, Chair Perez, and your amazing consultants for helping us save some vulnerable library programs in the state budget, particularly the ESL literacy programs at libraries. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Hello, Sarah Brennan with the Weidman Group. First, on behalf of Valor, we want to thank the Senate for the inclusion of $50 million in the budget for the Victims of Crime Funding Act. And then on behalf of NextGen California, we thank the Senate for critical investments in immigrant defense, healthy school foods, and higher education. and we urge the inclusion of Cap and Invest to protect climate funding, the Student Loan Empowerment Network to support student borrowers, and an additional division of apprenticeship staffing in the final budget negotiations. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Tiffany White with SEIU California. We're grateful for maintaining the core funding for IHSS by rejecting all of the governor's proposed cuts, in particular the cost shift to counties. We're grateful for the dedicated funding to support H.R. 1 eligibility-related county activities, training and staffing for both Medi-Cal and CalFresh and for rejecting the surge. But we note that we still need the match waiver because if we don't, then counties won't be able to draw down all of the CalFresh money. We appreciate the rejection of APS. And then finally, related to SNFs, regrettably without the dedicated $150 million for the WQIP, we risk losing quality gains for SNFs. So we would ask that the final budget also include the restoration of the WQIP for $150 million for one year. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, Rachel Blucher. On behalf of LA Care First, thank you for the commitment to Medi-Cal, especially the rejection of the transition of UIS members to fee-for-service. Thank you, Senator Raza, for your comments on that issue. Also, on behalf of the counties of Contra Costa, San Diego, Yolo, Lake, and Imperial, we just appreciate the investment in counties to mitigate the impacts of HR1. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Afternoon Craig Scholler on behalf of California Primary Care Association We want to express our deep gratitude and appreciation for the health care protections in this budget By preserving PPS reimbursements for UIS patients at FQHCs protecting funding for gender care and rejecting or delaying Medi cuts this budget protects patients and keeps the safety net intact. We urge you to support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Kim Rothschild, the California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS. I appreciate the rejection of the IHSS cuts and the proposal to shift costs to counties. Thanks. Thank you very much. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors in support of the inclusion for $5 million for the indigent defense pilot overall. Thank you. Thank you very much. Porva Baticharji with Housing California. I'm here today representing a budget coalition of over 100 affordable housing, homelessness, and tenant rights organizations statewide. We would like to thank you for including funding for HAP, state tax credits, and the multifamily housing program. We also applaud the support for an affordable housing bond and for the commitment to maintain GGRF investments in affordable housing, transportation, and clean air programs promised in last year's Cabin Invest deal. However, we urge all parties to ensure funding for CalHome, the Joe Cerna Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program, and the Portfolio Reinvestment Program, which are not currently named in the joint legislative budget. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Taisha Watts with the California Housing Partnership. I want to align my comments with my colleague from Housing California, and thank you all for your leadership on putting forward an agreement that tries to limit the impacts of HR1 on our safety net programs to help provide critical resources to our most vulnerable populations. Thank you for including investments in our state LIHTC program and to our MHP program. The MHP program is our flagship program for how we build affordable housing to our most extremely low-income renters. Even though this investment is important, we want to ensure that we are able to have a substantial investment to reach the 1.2 million extremely low-income renters in California. So we hope that in the final enactment of the budget that we see an increase for MHP and to also ensure that we have funding for the Portfolio Reinvestment Program, which was not named, which helps us preserve our affordable housing stock until we're able to reach the homes that we need. And then lastly, as you guys consider conversations around GGRF. You are at a minute. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. And which allows me to say we have ten minutes before I have to cut it off, And if each of you in line takes 30 seconds or less, I can hear from you all. So if you can do that, then I don't have to cut those people off at the end of the line. And to senators that are listening, we expect to have a motion and a vote in 10 minutes. So please return to the committee room. Welcome. Good afternoon. Marina Espinoza with the California Housing Consortium. We are very grateful for the investments in the low-income housing tax credit program and the multifamily housing program. and also appreciate the anticipation of a housing bond. We also greatly appreciate the efforts to honor the state's commitment for Tier 3 programs funded by GDRF, including the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Hello. Yesenia Jimenez with – oh, sorry, Yesenia Robancho, because I got married – with End Child Poverty California. Well, congratulations. Thank you. Here to say thank you for the thoughtful budget in front of us. I think we all feel it in our bones how awful this budget would have been had we not done something on progressive revenues. So California is sending a clear message to our children and families that you do not deserve to go hungry in the fourth largest economy in this world. For our children, the 14 to 17-year-olds who are newly subject to this work requirement of their households, that's 35,000 children. And they are dependents. They are children. Very last thing on Disaster Rebuilding Fund, we hope that we can include a care fund in this budget. And lastly, just look forward to working with your offices to ensure that we amend Trump accounts to ensure that they do less harm than intended. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Dax Proctor on behalf of California's United for Responsible Budget. Our coalition wholeheartedly supports your decision to include one state prison closure in the legislative budget package. Thank you for putting forward that prison closure is a fiscally responsible way to make space in the budget for critical programs and services that actually prevent harm and crisis, including social safety net services, violence prevention, community-based programming inside prisons like the Right Grant, and support for survivors inside women's prisons. Thank you for your leadership, your responsible budgeting, and for listening to our collective call for a safer, more equitable California through corrections budget reductions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California. We wanted to thank you for including prison closure in the legislature's budget in order to fund other critical services. We also wanted to thank you so much for funding indigent defense programs for survivors and victims of crime and rehabilitative services. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good afternoon. Thank you for having the opportunity to speak. I am here to urge you to include family child care providers in the final budget, with the same 4.31% of the cost of living adjusted being provided to our peers' educators. Family child care providers are critical, part of California's early learning system. We care and educate our children every day, support working families, and after-served communities with the greatest need. and excluding us for the equal COLA since the clear message that our work is in value less. We are asking for fairness and prioritize this budget. Please ensure that family child care providers receive the same 4.31%. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Aurora Reyes. I'm a family child care educator in Los Angeles. I urge you to fully fund and deliver the 44,000 slots that were promised in 2021-2022 with a strong priority on flexible voucher options. Families across California are struggling to access child care as child care deserts grow. Reimbursement rates are so low that providers can't keep their doors open. Even when families qualify, a lack of flexible options means that families can't find the care that meets their needs. I work with parents who were told that the wait list for subsidized care can be up to three years. For them, access isn't delayed. It's denied. But adding extra slots alone. If you can begin to wrap up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to talk. I'm here to talk the increasing cost. In the past year my grocery prices to provide hard nutrition meals to the children in my care for many of them the only nutrition food they receive have almost tripled it And the gas I buy to transport the school aged children and from the school while their their parenting works as a nursing janitors, drivers have increased. Myself have increased each week. If you can begin to wrap up. Each week by closing 100 when I already can pay myself salary on the state low rates. You're actually at a minute. Thank you very much. and we have five minutes left in those people. So I would just encourage anybody that's left to give your name and your organization and a couple of sentences of what you support so we can try to get to everybody. Understood. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Edgar Guerra with SEIU California. I'll be quick. I just want to uplift the comments made by our child care providers that have came to Sacramento to advocate for a budget that works for them, the families, and kids they serve. Thank you. Thank you very much. Chair and members, Jose Torres on behalf of TechNet. I want to register our opposition to the proposed sales tax on SaaS transactions and the permanent cap on R&D tax credits included in the greater budget discussions. We'll reserve our detailed comments for when the implementing trailer bills are taken up, but we want it to be on record here as well. These proposals threaten California's innovation economy and place very much real costs on employers. Thank you very much, and we will be having a hearing on those. Welcome. Good afternoon, committee chair and members. Yereni Mangayun with Political Solutions on behalf of the Business Software Alliance. We are opposed to the Software as a Service Sales Tax as included in the larger legislative agreement and ABSB 122 and 176. And we will be having a hearing on those later in the week. Welcome. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Connie Delgado on behalf of the District Hospital Leadership Forum here in support and thank you for the funding for distressed hospitals. District hospitals received over 50 percent of the funding in the first round, and this money represents a lifeline for these hospitals and the communities they serve. Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Hi there. McKinley Thompson Morley aligned my comments with those made by CTA urging the legislature to continue on behalf of VTA urging the legislature to continue working towards a three-party deal honoring ongoing commitments of tier three including LC top to R.C.P. and ASIC. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good afternoon chair members. Janessa O'Malley with AFSCME California. We appreciate the inclusion of 77 million dollars for VLF for counties of San Mateo, Alpine, and Mano. We also appreciate the legislature's commitment to transparency at CDCR by requiring reporting to the legislature on their program requests and making sure that they invest in the civil service workforce, not contractors. Thank you very much. Welcome. Good afternoon, Jessica Hay, also with AFSCME California. Thank you for rejecting the governor's proposed cuts to IHSS.
We echo the comments that will be made by our affiliate, UDW. We support the corporate fair share and echo the comments from our colleague at the Labor Fed. We also echo the comments from our colleagues at CTA and CFT and urge the full funding of Prop 98. Thank you very much.
Hello, my name is Elizabeth Kim, and I'm the Policy Director at Initiate Justice. Just want to give a lot of thanks for doing hard math, additional prison closures, the right grant, and for funding social-emotional learning.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Good afternoon. Aniele Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center. Just want to thank you for your investments in immigration legal services and in the California Food Assistance Program.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.
Thank you Krista Ramos with the California Immigrant Policy Center I want to thank the legislator for delaying the implementation of many of the cuts made of Medi last year Additionally I want to thank you for the deferral of the DMV state contract with AMBA until proper guardrails are agreed upon And we're disappointed to see that the reinvestment of seed funding that has acted as a safety net for immigrant entrepreneurs amongst increasing threats to their ability to earn money and participate in the state's economy.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.
Hi. Caroline Grinder on behalf of the League of California Cities here to thank the legislature for investing in the next round of the HAP program, in Prop 36 implementation, in several affordable housing programs that we know are important to our cities. And lastly, we're encouraged to see the legislature in agreement to continue discussions on the cap and invest in GGRF funding.
Thank you. Thank you.
Good afternoon. Julie Sherman, Director of Public Policy for the Arc of California. We believe that the 21,000 IHSS asset limit for people with disabilities is an improvement in the right direction from the $2,000 limit. But I would ask members to consider this. If you became disabled tomorrow, how would you feel if you could not have more than 21,000 in retirement savings and still qualify for care services you need as a basic necessity, such as getting out of bed, getting bathed, dressed? For people with disabilities, there is no insurance product that you can purchase to cover this type of welfare.
Thank you very much. We really appreciate your comments. Welcome.
Good afternoon, Chair members. Monica Majorida with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Chair. We thank the Senate Budget Committee for including funding for High School Dream Resource Centers, the California Welcome Center, Immigration Legal Services, and the East Haven Program. We also align our comments with the California Immigrant Policy Center on supporting the delay to Medi-Cal and also supporting the delay to the DMV data transition over to AMBA.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Dan Merwin. On behalf of the California School Boards Association, in opposition to the Prop 98 manipulation, in opposition to the CSPP shift, I would ask for a better reimbursement mechanism for the paid pregnancy leave that actually reflects the cost to LEAs regardless of program.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.
Nate Williams, Executive Director of Choice for Freedom. Thank you all for the first juvenile trial in the state of California. I'm the first one. This is statewide clearance. Thank you for the ride grant.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome.
Good afternoon. Mandy Deese with Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, CREC. We represent the largest group of refugees ever resettled in this country. And just want to echo our gratitude alongside other immigrants' rights awards that have spoken here, including CHERLA and CIPC, on delays and rejections across the board to preserve health access. Also, huge gratitude for the additional $100 million for legal services to meet this moment. And lastly, want to express disappointment that ethnic studies funding continues to be absent despite state statute for the high school mandate, and its important intersections across health education.
And thank you very much. We appreciate your comments. Welcome.
Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Adalia King with UDW Ask Me Local 3930. I just want to echo some of our providers earlier today from child care, urging you to restore the 4.3% COLA. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Chair and members, thank you for your indulgence of time. Marissa Hagerman for ACLAMA. We appreciate the work done today on the budget. We understand GGRF conversations will continue to that, and we look forward to engaging you on the need to fully fund and extend the statewide mobile monitoring initiative, $30 million out of GGRF this year.
Thank you. Thank you very much. That completes public comment, and I want to acknowledge that we did have to rush some of the comments And if you have additional comments you like to make the committee will accept them in writing to our website or directly to the committee address that you can get off the website. We would welcome any additional comments. With that, the matter is back before the committee for motion. Okay. A motion by Archuleta, but a clear support by Reyes. Any further discussion? Seeing none, would you please call the roll. AB 109, the motion is to pass. Senators Laird?
Aye.
Laird, aye. Nilo?
No.
Nilo, no. Archuleta?
Aye.
Archuleta, aye. Blakespeare?
Aye.
Blakespeare, aye. Cobaldon? Choi?
No.
Choi, no. Dorosso?
No.
Dorosso, no. McRomever.
Hurtado. Aye.
McNerney.
Aye.
Mandjabar.
Mandjabar. Aye.
Ochoa Bogues.
Perez. Aye.
Perez.
Aye.
Richardson.
Ciardo. No.
Ciardo, no.
Smallwood Cuevas. Aye.
Weber Pearson.
Aye. Weber Pearson, aye.
I believe it's 10 to 4, Brian. All right. Not voting. Okay. And then...
Richardson. Richardson, aye.
Okay, Richardson, aye. I show we have 11 to 4. Is that right? We'll put the matter on call, and we'll ask for the missing members to show up, and we'll hold the roll open. Thanks, everyone, for this hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we will come back to order and we will lift the call. Please call those that have not been registered yet. Senators Cabaldon?
Aye.
Cabaldon, aye.
Richardson? Aye.
Richardson, aye. Okay, what's the final total here? Senator Graceland?
Yeah, I think you're going to probably check in with the bartender.
Thank you. Thank you. That bill has 12 votes aye, 4 votes no. The measure passes. That completes our hearing. Thanks, everybody, for their work on this. The Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review stands adjourned.