Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Federal Infrastructure Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee hears SJR 6 urging protection of federal infrastructure and clean‑energy funds
Summary
Senator John L. Cortese presented SJR 6 on June 9, asking the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee to urge the federal government to preserve investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.
Senator John L. Cortese, author of SJR 6, told the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on June 9 that the resolution urges President Trump and Congress to uphold investments made possible by three federal laws: the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act. Cortese said those laws have provided “enormous benefits” to California, including more than $63 billion in awards to the state and specific grants for hydrogen, high‑speed rail and port modernization.
Cortese said recent federal actions threatened to “reverse that progress, halting grants, repealing programs, and putting projects and jobs across our state at risk.” Andy Atala of the Climate Reality Project testified in support, saying the laws “expedited the deployment of renewable energy, furthered environmental justice, and created thousands of good paying union supported jobs across the state.”
Not all members supported the resolution as written. Senator Steven Strickland said he supported many elements of backing federal investment but objected to the SJR’s inclusion of California high‑speed rail, which he called a mismanaged project with “significant delays” and cost overruns. Senator Nilo echoed concerns, arguing the state has also cut previously committed greenhouse‑gas‑reduction funds and asking why California’s budget reductions should be criticized if the federal government faces similar pressures.
Chairwoman Ashby said the committee would not take a vote that day; Cortese gave a brief closing statement and the chair said the item would be returned next week for a vote‑only consideration. No formal motion to adopt SJR 6 was made in the June 9 hearing.
The resolution frames SJR 6 as a nonbinding statement urging continuation of federal funding streams and does not itself change state law or appropriate funds. Committee discussion focused on political and budgetary tradeoffs — members repeatedly separated support for the three federal laws’ programs from support for particular projects such as the high‑speed rail.
The committee left SJR 6 pending for a vote only at a later meeting so members could continue discussions and work with the author.
