Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations

Hello, everyone. Good morning. Welcome to the June 19, 2024 Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing. We have 36 bills to consider this morning as part of our regular order hearing. Before we begin, I have a few housekeeping notes to cover. First, I'd like to thank Assemblymember Mark Berman for filling in. First, I don't know why my mic went off.

I want to thank Assemblymember Mark Berman for filling in for Assembly Member Wendy Carrillo and Assemblymember Aguiar Curry for filling in for Villapudua. On the Committee today, we encourage the public to provide written testimony before the hearing by visiting the Committee websites at apro.Assembly.ca.Gov.

Please note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. The hearing room is open for attendance. All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly website today.

Assembly.ca.Gov/Todaysevents we encourage the public to monitor the Committee's website for updates. We will accept public comment on any Bill placed on the suspense file by the Committee today and for which the author waived presentation before the close of the regular order hearing. Testimony on any such Bill will be limited to a statement of name, organization, if any, and position on the Bill. The Committee will allow no more than 40 minutes of testimony in total.

As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation, which were posted outside the door. I encourage Members of the public who are in attendance to be aware of and observe those rules.

Please be aware that violations of these rules or other violations of General courtesy or decorum may subject you to removal or other enforcement processes. With that, I'd like to establish a quorum. If one is present. Madam Secretary, is a quorum of the member's presence. Wix here.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. Okay, we will start with our special order of business. First up is Senator Wiener to present SB 905. Please begin.

Please begin.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, I'm here today to present Senate Bill 905, which will first and foremost close the locked door loophole, which I've been trying to get this passed since 2018, which is a nonsensical barrier to holding auto burglars accountable.

Under existing law, it's not sufficient to prove that someone broke into a car, you have to also prove that the doors were all locked, even if you have definitive proof that they broke in.

And so that means that victims are asked to testify that their vehicle was locked, they may not remember, or if someone was visiting, say, using a rental car, they may now be 3000 miles away and they're not going to fly back to come into court to testify that they locked their doors. So this Bill closes that loophole.

And that's section one of the Bill. Section two will address the problem of organized resale of goods stolen from cars. We know that auto burglars often seek valuable items from cars such as laptops, cameras, cell phones, et cetera, and then resell them.

Under SB-905, individuals can be prosecuted for holding more than $950 of stolen goods intended for resale, whether the goods were stolen in one or multiple incidents. This is part of the Senate's working together for a Safer California Package. And we appreciate the collaboration with the Assembly. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We have a motion. A second? Or we have a motion? We don't have a second. We have a second, but let's. Before we'll get to all of it, but I want to just walk through the. If we have any folks that wish to testify in support. Please name, organization, and position please.

Ryan Allain, on behalf of the California Retailers Association. In support.

Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the Mayor of San Francisco, London Breed, as well as the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. In support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriffs' Association. We're in support of the Bill, if it's not amended pursuant to the analysis regarding the inoperability clause. If so amended, we would remove our support. Thank you.

Do we have any witnesses in opposition, or folks would like to register their opposition? And Senator, you don't have any primary witnesses, correct? Okay. And do you accept the Committee Amendments?

Yes.

Yes. Okay, great. Okay, so we have a motion by Mr. Berman and do we have a second? By Mr. Haney and Madam Vice Chair, you wanted to.

I'd like to make a substitute motion and move the Bill Do-Pass the floor as currently in print without the amendments.

So we have a substitute motion by Miss Sanchez to move the Bill as Do-Pass. And we have a second to that as well. The Chair is asking for a no vote and the Vice Chair, Miss Sanchez, is asking for an aye vote on the substitute motion. So let's take a roll call on that.

We're voting on the substitute motion and the Chair is asking for an aye vote. And the Vice Chair is asking for a no. Sorry, let me repeat that. So I'm extra clear. The Chair is asking for a no-vote and the Vice Chair is asking for an aye vote.

On the substitute motion. [Roll Call]

Motion? The substitute motion fails. Before we get to the original motion, the Do-Pass as amended. I think we have some questions from Members to the author. Miss Vice Chair, would you like to? Or, sorry. Who was? Oh, Miss Dixon.

Good morning, Senator. I think this is an excellent Bill without amendments, and I would be strongly in favor of it. I think it's really important. I saw in my own community when I was on our City Council the inadvertent unlocking of doors where people just forgot to lock their car doors.

And then if something was stolen out of that, the Police Department could not file any complaints about it because the door was unlocked. I think this is an important measure to fill that gap, and I appreciate what you're doing, and I was going to be pleased to support it, but not with those amendments.

But you've been trying to do this for several. Somebody's been trying to. This is about the fifth time this Bill has been introduced.

Yeah, by me.

Okay. So I would be strongly supportive. I'm sorry that you're putting that amendment on it and I can't support it.

So I wish that that amendment wasn't there so I'd be a no vote. But it's a good Bill. Not with that amendment. Thank you.

Any other questions from Committee Members or comments? Would you like to close, Senator?

Thank you. I understand that this Bill and other bills are getting caught up in some bizarre politics. You either support the policy or you don't support the policy. And I don't see why an inoperability clause, frankly, would affect that. Whatever happens with the ballot measure is going to happen one way or the other.

It's unclear to me why people would change their position on good policy based on that, but that's the way politics roll sometimes. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. We're back on the original motion, Do pass as amended. We have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call] 8 to 4.

That that measure passes, but we'll leave it open for folks who want to add on. Thank you, Senator. Next we have Senator Wahab. You're presenting SB 982. You can begin.

Thank you, chair and Members. SB 982 simply eliminates the January 12026 sunset to sustain the crime of organized retail theft. This Bill is part of the Senate Safer California plan and Governor Newsom's retail theft package.

This package is comprised of evidence based ways to address a number of different issues and bills combating retail theft through crime prevention and enhanced tools for law enforcement. This Bill will cost a few $1.0 million ongoing to continue its existing operations.

In return, SB 982 will allow for law enforcement and prosecutors to protect our businesses and save millions of dollars each year in theft. Earlier this year, Attorney General Rob Banta announced charges against a ringleader of an organized retail crime scheme that spanned 21 counties across the state and involved an estimated $8 million worth of losses.

This Bill will keep our communities safe and protect our businesses at a Low cost to the state. With me today testifying in support is Ryan Elaine, Director of government affairs for the California Retailers Association Association.

Thank you, Senator, chair Wicks, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of SB 982. As mentioned, my name is Ryan Allain, Director of Government affairs of California Retailers Association. The organized retail theft statute has been an effective tool in combating organized retail crime.

Also, this policy, the enforcement of this policy has been prioritized in budgets of recent years. Through the funding of this California Highway Patrol organized retail theft task force and through local grants. This statute has resulted in multimillion dollar cases being prosecuted and organized crime rings being dismantled.

These are organized crime rings that utilize stealing from retailers to Fund other criminal activities. Retail employees and customers are experiencing retail theft daily, and Californians are demanding that policymakers take this issue seriously. And by eliminating the sunset on the organized retail theft statute, criminals will know their coordinated activity will not be tolerated.

Bypassing SB 982, this Committee is setting an example that organized retail crime rings have no place in California retail stores, and the priority of the state is to ensure retail employees, retail customers and the neighborhoods we operate in are free from this organized criminal activity.

I just wanna give a few examples of just recently of a few counties that have used this. The Placer county District Attorney's office recently filed charges against a man accused of stealing $17,000 worth of merchandise. With the charges including organized retail theft. Same with the La County Sheriff's Department.

The organized Retail Crime Task Force arrested eight suspects last month. And then same with the San Francisco District Attorney charge an individual, among other things, with seven counts of organized retail thefts. I ask your. I vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there additional folks in the room wish to express support?

Good morning. Devin Anderson with political solutions on behalf of target support.

Any folks wish to express opposition or any tweeners? Okay, we will. We will bring it back to the Committee. Do we have questions for the author and. Sorry. Do you accept the amendments?

I fully accept the amendments. Thank you.

I'll ask a question.

We have a question from Miss Dixon. Just to follow up on my prior questions or statements. So questions could speak regarding those amendments. I think your Bill is a great Bill, but with those amendments, what do the amendments do that strengthens the Bill? Because the initiative, this does not duplicate any provisions in the initiative.

So it would be excellent if were passed, but without the amendments, that compromises the Bill, in my opinion. What do the amendments do for your Bill?

Definitely the amendments are specifically to make the Bill in print happen today, basically effective immediately, if possible, with the governor's, obviously, approval. And obviously, if the initiative moves forward, this Bill would be void.

But the initiative does not contain those provisions of your Bill, so you're putting that at risk.

I think that personally, legislation is the best way to make a balanced approach in policy. We hear from all states stakeholders, we clearly hear from our California Retailers Association, as well as many people in support in regards to business communities, law enforcement and much more.

So there's different ways to go about good, sound policy, and this would be the cheapest way for taxpayers.

Well, 900,000 taxpayers supported putting this ballot before them. So thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions for the Senator? Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? We have a substitute motion here, I believe, from the Vice Chair. I'd like to make a substitute motion to move the Bill do pass to the floor as currently in print, without amends.

We have a substitute motion by Miss Sanchez to move the Bill as a do pass. And there's a second by Miss Dixon Members. The chair is asking for a no on that. And the Vice Chair's asking for an I on that, Madam Secretary, on a.

Substitute motion is due pass. [Roll Call]

That motion fails. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Members. We're back to the original motion of do pass, as amended, and we have a motion. A second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Eight to four, that is out, and we'll allow Members to add on. Thank you. Next, we have Senator Skinner. My Senator, Senator Skinner. I'm biased. I think she's the best. You may begin when you're ready. And if you could also start by announcing if you accept the committee amendments or not, that'd be great. Oh, and turn the mic on, too.

Good idea. Thank you, Chair and Members. I'm presenting SB 1144. And, yes, I will start with that. I am taking the committee's amendments, which are some technical changes to the bill, and also the committee amendments that add an urgency clause, an inoperative clause if the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act is approved by voters in the statewide general election.

Now, to the content of the bill. In 2022, I authored SB 301, which created regulations for online marketplaces. Now, why did I do that? Where do a lot of us buy our goods? We don't go to brick and mortar stores as much anymore. We buy online. So if you're somebody who has organized retail theft ring, stealing a lot of goods and you got to unload them, where are you selling them? You're not selling them down on the corner. You're not selling them out of the trunk of a car. You're selling them online.

So the way to protect our retailers from this rise in retail theft is to deal with the place where the goods are being unloaded, and that's online. So what SB 301 did, the original bill, is that it required our marketplaces to verify the legality of their high volume sellers.

Those sellers had to have a bank account, a business ID, a tax ID, and sure, there are some very clever thieves who will go to all the trouble of making themselves look legitimate. But by and large, most of these operations don't want to look legitimate, so then they stopped using those.

Or when they did, at least our law enforcement was able to track them down. And we have now seen, and the report just came out from the Governor's office yesterday, of the amount of goods we've been able to both recover and prosecutions we've successfully done because we've been able to track down these sellers.

Now, what some of these sellers have done, because they're going to be caught because of SB 301, they're using now online marketplaces where they don't do the exact transaction. They advertise the good, in effect, but they don't have the sale take place on the site. That way, they don't have to show whether they're legitimate. That's hurting us.

So the new bill before you today, SB 1144, requires those marketplaces, the Internet entities, to, for their high volume sellers, and these are sellers who do over 200 individual transactions. That's not 200 goods, but 200 individual transactions in a given year, that they would have to show this legitimate information the same way that SB 301 did.

That is what we need to be able to prosecute these organized theft rings and to get this under control. It had worked very well under the original bill, and so we're extending it to, with this bill, to those to get around loopholes. So with that, I'd like to have my witness in support, Ryan Allain from the California Retailers Association.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Skinner. As mentioned, Ryan Allain with the California Retailers Association. I just want to state that we've worked on this policy with the Senator in years past with her original SB 301, and we're very happy to work with her again this year. Through a lot of conversations, able to come out in full support of this important issue.

We've seen in the past that folks, whenever they would resale or fence stolen goods, that often do it in public spaces, on the street and various other areas. But given the rise in technology, we've seen that happen online more and more. It's become a very low risk, high reward scheme.

And we do see that there are a lot of good actors in the online marketplace arena, but this does fix something that has been utilized by folks with stolen goods who do the meetup in person. And I just want to give one example. Down in LA recently, someone organized a meetup online through sale of goods, and then in person actually robbed the people that they met up with. They targeted these folks online and use this. And we just think this would help deter that instance and just protect the integrity of the online marketplaces. So we ask your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have additional folks wish to express support? Please, name, organization, and position.

Devon Anderson with Political Solutions on behalf of Target and the Home Depot in support.

Good morning. Glenn Backes with Prosecutors Alliance Action, proud sponsor of SB 1144. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? We will bring it back to the committee. Any questions from Members? Mr. Ta.

Senator, I really appreciate that you introduced a bill, and actually, you know, I'm not sure that you're aware that many, many law enforcement, they're not supporting amendment. Is there any way that you can explain to me that any provision, in your bill, in your amendment, that include the initiative out there. And we all aware that initiative, that they have over 900,000 signature.

The contents of SB 1144 will do far more to help us prosecute and end organized retail theft than anything in that initiative. So this is what is needed to be able to deal with the problem we have. And let me give you a real, very concrete example that many of you may have read about. You may have seen the press reports. It was about three months ago, about a very wealthy couple in San Diego who literally were hiring people to steal goods. Now, when I say hiring, were they filling out a W2 form?

No, but they were paying these individuals and saying... So the wealthy couple were the ones who had the site or were selling the goods online. And they had built a huge business out of this, and they were specializing in cosmetics. And so they had a whole crew of people that they would text and say, oh, this perfume is really popular right now, or this particular makeup. So we need about, you know, try to get us a good, whatever, x number of units.

And they would put that out to, like, 10 different people who would hit different retailers and get exactly what this wealthy couple demanded them to get. They would then pay them some money, the individuals, and then take those goods and sell them. That the, when they got busted, which they did, they were found to have already earned over 8 million from this operation. Now, there is nothing in that initiative that gets at that couple. This bill does and would.

Thank you, Senator. Ms. Dixon.

Thank you, Senator. You're absolutely correct. That is why we need both of them. Your bill, I voted for this bill and Judiciary and in Privacy last week. I think it's an excellent means to address online retail theft. Excellent. However, in my opinion, you've compromised your own wishes by cutting, by sacrificing.

If the initiative passes, you don't want this law to take effect. I don't understand. I can't even get my brain around it. So the initiative sign, signatures of 900,000 people want the initiative, it doesn't. The initiative does not include the provisions of your bill. Your bill, I voted for it twice.

That would be an excellent compliment to the initiative, and I cannot support it because of the amendments that you've agreed to take. It's a shame, because your bill is needed, but not with the poison pill amendments that compromise. So you have a good idea, but you've now cut it off. And I'm disappointed to see that because I would have liked to see that if take effect at the same time with the initiative. So thank you very much.

Well, I appreciate your past support. I think it would be wise for you to continue that support. And I think what I've done is I'm setting the record straight. I'm making it clear that, you know, the backers of the initiative are trying to sell it as something that is going to address our retail theft problem, and it does not. So I'm making it clear that this is what is going to address that retail theft problem, and our retailers agree.

Now, let me just finish my statement then. The initiative addresses certain crimes. These package of retail theft crimes are an excellent addition to the initiative and overall make a combined strong package for law enforcement and to combat all kinds of retail theft. So together, they complement one another.

But you've now compromised, in my opinion, your bill by adding this poison pill. Had you not done that, this bill would have more widespread support. So we need both, and I, and we need what's in the initiative, and we need your type of bills and this package of bills we're discussing this morning. So thank you.

Any other questions? Ms. Isaac?

Thank you, Senator. This is an actual thoughtful approach to addressing a complex problem. Let's just be clear. The initiative is a clear reminder of the deep criminalization of poverty that's taken place in this country for decades. Right.

The idea that we can solve retail crime without addressing the growing income inequality, the growing emergence of new online marketplaces, the growing changes in both technology and the way we live is impractical. This is a thoughtful and smart solution. I want to thank you for bringing it forward. And if there isn't a motion, I'd like to make a motion.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Okay.

I'd like to make a substitute motion.

And our Vice Chair would like to make a substitute motion.

To move the bill do pass to the floor as currently in print without amendments.

So we have a substitute motion by Ms. Sanchez to move the bill as do pass. Do we have a second? Second by Mr. Ta. So, Members, the Chair is asking for a no on the Vice and Vice Chair is asking for an aye on the substitute motion.

The motion before us is substitute. Motion is do pass. [Roll Call]

That that measure fails.

And Chair, may I close on the main motion?

Yes. And let me just... So we do have a do pass as amended and a second. Senator, would you like to close?

Thanks so much. I think in my closing, I'd like to say is that what we need our law enforcement free to do... We know that one of the issues we've been facing with a variety of our different crimes is a what we would call lack of closure rates. So in other words, we need to have law enforcement have the resources and the time to dedicate to enforcing our laws. And then in doing so, allowing then our prosecution to get these people. That's what we've seen. All the research shows that the largest deterrent to crime is getting caught.

And so we need to make sure that our law enforcement has the ability to do that. And distracting them with things that do not get at the heart of solving the problem, which, for example, what this bill does is gets at the heart of solving the problem of our organized retail theft and allows then law enforcement to put their energies where it's really going to prove results for us. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is do pass as amended.

We're back to the original motion. Do pass as amended. [Roll Call] Eight to four.

Eight to four. That passes and will allow folks to add on. Thank you, Senator. Okay, next up we have Senator Min. You are presenting SB 1242. Please begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. As part of the Senate's Safer California Plan, SB 1242 would authorize higher penalties for those that commit arson in order to facilitate retail theft. Retail theft, as we know, has become increasingly sophisticated in recent years with scenarios where fire is being used to distract employees while suspects exit was stolen merchandise.

This dangerous diversionary tactic endangers lives and disrupts business operations. Stores not only lose the stolen merchandise, but suffer damage to their buildings and merchandise, sometimes having to close for weeks to make repairs.

SB 1242 would specify for the crime of reckless arson the fact that the offense was carried out within a merchant's premises in order to facilitate organized retail theft shall be a factor in aggravation at sentencing. I have with me Ryan Allain seems familiar, Director of Government Affairs for the California Retailers Association.

Thanks Senator Min. Members again, Ryan Allain, Director of Government Affairs, California Retailers Association pleasure to speak in support of SB 1242. Just wanted to highlight a few examples of why this is needed.

Last September in Southern California, a 40 year old woman was taken into custody for a connection to a fire at a popular retailer where she set fire to baby clothes section at store.

According to the investigation, the fires were intentionally set to cover an attempt to steal, and the fire caused $500,000 in damage to the building and $1 million in damage to the product.

Last year, in last June here in Sacramento, while shoppers were in a store, fire was set inside while a carefully orchestrated team walked out with hundreds of dollars of merchandise. The fire forced the store to close for weeks due to damage and restocked product.

And last year at that time, according to the Sacramento Metro Fire, they acknowledged that this is organized crime because they have premeditated nature. Arson within retail establishments poses a severe threat not only to property, but to human life. These establishments are not just buildings, they are hubs of economic activity where individuals earn their livelihoods.

When arson strikes, the consequences beyond the physical damage and then also the economic repercussions of arson within retail stores, are significant. Small business owners invest their time, resources and passion into their establishments.

When the businesses fall victim to arson not only results in financial loss, but disrupts the local economy as they are closed for weeks or even months. By enacting legislation to increase penalties for arson within the retail stores, we send a clear message that such crimes will not be tolerated. Thank you. And I ask for your support.

Thank you. Do we have additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any witnesses in opposition? Okay. Anyone else in the room wish to express opposition? Okay. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from Members? Vice also, do you accept the amendments?

Yes, we do.

Yes. Okay, great. And Vice Chair.

Senator, this bill now includes the amendment that would repeal it entirely if a public safety initiative passes in November. Your bill deals with reckless burning and has nothing to do with the initiative. Why does your bill now repeal itself if the initiative passes?

Thank you for the question, Assemblywoman Vice Chair. My understanding is that in talking with ledge counsel and as part of the broader Senate Safer California package, the two provisions in question, the urgency amendment and the inoperability amendment, were added as omnibus additions. And so you know that we accepted those amendments as being necessary to the bill.

At the end of the day, it's a good bill. Wanted to support it regardless, and so it's solving a real problem, one that I think we know is becoming more problematic across California.

Came up here to try to solve problems, and I know there's a lot of politics around this bill and around the initiative you're mentioning, trying to just get problems solved here.

So, follow up question. Where in the initiative does it deal with reckless burning? Can you point to.

I'm sorry, and I'll be honest, I have not had time to review the initiative. I've got a lot on my plate these days. At the point in time when the ballot is finalized, I'm going to take a look at all the initiatives on that ballot and take a look at them. But I honestly have not had time to review it.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? We have a second.

I actually did not know what it was called until you just mentioned it.

To be honest with you, I'm just disappointed. These amendments that you guys are forcing into your bills will deny California voters a fair vote on the upcoming public safety initiative. Your actions are going to tilt the playing field against this initiative with zero policy justification. It's anti-democratic, it's unfair, and to be frank, it's borderline corrupt.

I cannot support these bills today, and it's truly unfortunate you've turned what could have been a bipartisan accomplishment into political gamesmanship. Thank you, Vice Chair.

Madam Chair.

Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you. I would just say, again, the politics aside, I hope this is a bipartisan bill and that you'll consider voting for it, because I think it's good policy. At the end of the day, I respectfully ask for you aye vote.

We have a motion. Mr. Berman, do you have any other questions?

Yeah, as some of my colleagues are posturing and playing politics with good policy, I'd like to note that it was the minority leader. Minority leader Gallagher, who admitted to the press on the record, that the proposition is good politics for them.

So I'd encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to look in the mirror and acknowledge the comments that are being made by their leadership about playing politics with good policy for the people of California.

Thank you, Mr. Berman. We have motions do passed as amended. And we've got a second on that, I believe. Any other questions?

I'd like to make a substitute motion.

Our Vice Chair is making a substitute motion.

Move the bill do pass to the floor is currently in print without amendments.

We have a substitute motion by Sanchez to move the bill do pass. And do we have a second on that? The chair is asking for a no. The Vice Chair is asking for an aye.

Motion is do pass on a substitute motion. [Roll Call]

That motion fails. Senator, would you like to close again?

I know there's politics on both sides of this. I think this is good policy. I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Great. We are back to the original motion as do pass as amended. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The measure is on call. Thank you, Senator. And I know we have one more item. As for special order of business by Senator Newman, who I believe is Chairing a Committee at the moment. So we will go to our bills heard, our regular order of business that is, I believe.

Okay. And I know we're having two bills presented, I believe Mr. Bradford and Mr. Laird. And if you are watching Mr. Bradford or Mr. Laird, please feel free to join us in Assembly Appropriations Committee. While we wait for them, we will get back to. Let's take the consent calendar. Do we have a motion?

A motion by Miss Aguiar-Curry. A second by Mr. Hart. Madam Secretary, please read the consent calendar.

The following bills are all Senate Bills. 931, Committee on Governmental Organization. 949, Blakespear. 1009, Dahle. 1024, Ochoa Bogh. 1034, Seyarto. 1044, Seyarto. 1172, Grove. 1215, Committee on Governmental Organization. 1224, Ochoa Bogh. 1225, Jones. 1226, Cortese. 1257, Blakespear. 1320, Wahab. 1385, Roth. 1464, Ashby. 1495, Wilk.

1519, Committee on Governmental Organization. 1520, Committee on Natural Resources and Water. 1529, Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs. And 1530, Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs. [Roll Call] 12 to 0. Consent calendar is adopted.

The consent calendar is adopted. I'd like to dispense with the suspense calendar, Madam Secretary. Would you please read the suspense calendar?

The following bills are all Senate bills. 24, Umberg. 227, Durazo. 399, Wahab. 551, Portantino. 782, Limón. 908, Cortese. 1015, Cortese. 1131, Gonzalez, And 1175, Ochoa Bogh.

The suspense calendar is deemed approved, so we are now waiting on a couple authors. Three, Mr. Newman for the special order, Mr. Bradford, and Mr. Laird, you are welcome to join us in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

And we have Senator Newman arriving. He ran, apparently. Okay, Mister Newman, you are presenting SB 1416. You may begin when you are ready. If you could turn on the mic.

Assembly was presenting a Bill in my Committee, could not leave midstream, and that stream goes long, so I appreciate it. So, Madam Chair Members, again, apologies to make you wait.

First, before I start, I'd like to make clear I'm willing to take the Committee amendments, and thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1416, which creates a set of escalating enhancements from middlemen found guilty of profiting from the sale, exchange, return, or attempted resale of items obtained through organized retail theft.

As you're aware, increasingly sophisticated organized retail theft operations often involve multiple people collaborating in a coordinated effort to steal merchandise from multiple stores, thereby maximizing the amount of stolen goods aggregated for eventual resale.

This is a disconcerting byproduct of the evolution of social media and the rise of online marketplaces, and it creates a frictionless basis for individuals or syndicates to seamlessly coordinate the activities of others to steal, aggregate, and then resell stolen goods, often using some of the same platforms that we use to buy all of our other stuff.

As a prime example of this phenomenon, earlier this month, a 71 year old man and his 39 year old accomplice were arrested and charged in Long Beach. Was stealing more than 2800 boxes of legos in sets whose values ranged from $20 to well over $1,000.

A subsequent investigation revealed that at least some of the merchandise had been stolen from Target stores in the Southern California area, but that the stolen Lego sets were being sold to buyers both locally and across the country through online listings on platforms like Amazon, Facebook, Marketplace, etcetera.

And so this is where we are, a sophisticated fencing ring for stolen legos, of all things. This isn't even the first instance of Lego-centric organized retail theft.

As a result of the market for collection worthy sets, but also for other high value goods, we've seen demand instigate supply, and organized retail theft is happy enough to meet that supply. This Bill is a component of the Senate's Working Together for A Safer California.

What this Bill does, it provides a series of enhancements based on the value of merchandise sold to better punish, but hopefully deter the kinds of sophisticated operations that we've increasingly been seeing. By enhancing the criminal penalties associated with organized retail theft, SB 1416 will better safeguard California's businesses by deterring those hoping to profit from retail theft.

I am respectfully asking for your aye vote today.

Thank you, Senator. Do we have any additional, do we have any primary witnesses in support?

I do not.

Okay. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support?

Ryan Allaine, on behalf of the California Retailers Association in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses are in opposition. Any additional folks in the room wish to express opposition? Name, organization and position, please.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Ryan Sherman, with a bunch of different law enforcement associations I'll get to in a second. We support the Bill as it is in print. However, we're opposed to the amendments that are going to include the inoperability.

We fully support and thank the Senator for his work on this Bill, and we believe that if the Bill is worthy of passage and so important that an urgency clause is necessary, why isn't it worthy to stay on the books?

Speaking on behalf today of the Riverside Sheriff's Association, California Narcotic Officers Association, the Reserve Peace Officers Association, and the Police Officer Associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Murrieta, Newport Beach, Nevada, Palos Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, Santa Ana, and Upland, and the Deputy Sheriff Association of Placer County. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have any questions from the Committee Members? Okay, do we have a motion? A motion. Do we have a second? Second. Madam Vice Chair?

I'd like to make a substitute motion and move the Bill, do pass the floor as currently in print, without amendments.

We have a substitute motion by Vice Chair Sanchez to move the Bill, do pass. Do we have a second on that? Miss Dixon is going to second that? We did, but you can. Let's get through this and then I'll go back to you. Yeah.

The Chair is asking for a no vote and the Vice Chair is asking for an aye vote on the substitute motion. Miss Dixon is the second on that. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call].

4-10. That measure fails. We'll bring it back to the Committee for questions. Miss Dixon?

Thank you so much, Chair. Senator, good Bill. I appreciate your Bill and our efforts to deal with crime in our communities. However, I'm disappointed with the amendments that you agreed to take because I believe it sincerely compromises your efforts that you've worked so hard on. The initiative, it does not overlap with the initiative, so it's an excellent complimentary measure.

Law enforcement, as you've just heard, is strongly in support. Just in the last 24 hours, we've received over 3500 signatures from people saying, keep these bills, but don't keep that amendment. And so I'm so sorry that I cannot support your vote for your Bill.

It's a good Bill, but because of this effort to put a poison pill and discourages the initiative and 900,000 people who support the initiative and want to combat crime in our community, including your Bill, I'm sorry this whole package has to be treated this way, but I liked your Bill, so I'll have to vote no. Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Any other questions? Okay, we have a motion and a second. Would you like to close, Senator?

Thank you for the consideration. I understand you've had some versions of this conversation earlier in the Committee hearing. This Bill is part of a larger package. This package takes place in a dynamic environment, has a larger context. The Bill stands on its merits. The urgency clause, among other things, would allow for its implementation immediately.

And I am respectfully asking for an aye vote today.

Appreciate your work, Senator. With that, we have a motion, do pass as amended. And we have a second. Would you please call the roll?

[Roll Call].

That measure passes, we'll let folks add on. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Members.

And now we will go back to our regular order of business. We have Mister Laird, I believe walked in first. We've got a motion and a second. Mister Laird, SB 1097, I believe you are presenting.

Thank you. I should know better after a motion and second, but this is gender inclusive language for the veterans code, plus two other provisions. I did a Bill two years ago because the first woman was ever appointed Highway Patrol Commissioner and every reference in the code referred to the Commissioner as he.

Now we have a woman as secretary of veterans affairs and many women that have served and this takes care of that language to make it inclusive. It has no registered opposition. It has had no. No votes. It was up in consent and Assembly veterans, and passed the Senate Floor 32 to zero. I respectfully request for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Any folks in the room wish to express support? Anyone wish to express opposition? I believe we have a motion. A second. Any folks have any questions for the Senator? Okay, Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you for the lengthy deliberation. And I respectfully request an I vote.

That is out on an a call, an a roll call with Mister Tahnah voting. Thank you. Okay, we are just waiting on Mister Bradford. zero, there's Senator Bradford right there, stepping up to the plate. This guy's a. He's a good baseball player. Mister Bradford is. You're presenting SB 924?

Here to present SB 924. It simply removes the sunset on a piece of legislation I pass in 2020. Simply allows landlords of assisted rent to provide or offer those tenants the opportunity to have their payments reported to a credit union.

We've seen since the four years in has passed since over 3000 people who were visible to the credit reporting system now have credit. This just removes the sunset and makes it a permanent program. And I respect for. That's for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any folks in the room wish to express support or opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? We have a motion by Mister Haney, second by Mister Arambula. Any other questions? Oh, please, Miss Calderon.

Senator, I just want to thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I think it's a really good Bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for a aye vote?

Thank you. That is out with Republicans not voting.

Thank you.

And we have, sorry, we've got to go back to add on for folks that need to add on for this Bill. It's on call. Mister Mintz. Madam Secretary,

[Roll Call]

Mister nine to four. That Bill is out and we'll go back. I think we've had Mister Fong and others join since we've started that need to add on.

Okay.

[Roll Call]

Thank you Mister Fong. And do we have any Members of the public wish to express comments on any bills not presented? Please name organization position on the Bill.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, respectfully opposed to SB 399, Wahab. Also, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, League of California Cities, Urban Counties of California, Rural County Representatives of California and the Association of California Healthcare Districts, thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room wish to express support or opposition to any bills not presented? Okay. And we will hold the roll open for Mister Grayson, who I believe is on his way.

[Roll Call]

Meetings adjourned.