Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Thirty seconds. Okay. Good morning. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety. As we begin today's hearing, we do not yet have a quorum, so we'll operate as a subcommittee. Just a few announcements. We have 26 bills on today's, public safety committee agenda. So I anticipate that we will continue into the afternoon.

We will have to recess the committee at 12:00, consent calendar. File item eight, SB 1018, by Senator Groove. File item 10, SB 1190 by Senator Grove. And file item 26, SB 1427 by the Committee on Public Safety. File item two, SB 906 by Senator Jones has been pulled from the agenda.

We will not hear that today. And as we begin today soon, just a few announcements on our public comment procedure. Thank you for joining us for today's public safety committee hearing. We will take two principal witnesses in support of each bill that were designated by the bill author and two witnesses in opposition. And witnesses in opposition should have registered the opposition officially in the portal prior to today's hearing.

After which, Shimon, let anyone to come up just to indicate whether you support or oppose the bill. We'll limit your testimony to stating your name, the organization, or what city you're from, and your position on the bill. And thank you for joining us today. So we'll begin first with our special order business. We now have two items on the special order filed in one SB 1446 by the Committee on Public Safety and filing three SB 1278 by Senator Nilo.

And I will present, SB 1446. So I'll turn the gavel over to the vice chair.

Alright. We have an author for SB 1446. Mister chair, go ahead with your report.

Mister Vice Chair, Committee Members, for the public, the release of somebody back into the community after serving a significant amount of time in custody for the conviction of serious crimes can be confusing and unsettling. That's why California law, similar to other states, does not treat parole suitability decisions lightly. To be suitable, an initial parole hearing panel consisting of two commissioners must evaluate and agree whether a person will pose an unreasonable risk to danger to society if released from prison.

Even after applying the law faithfully and evaluating all the facts in forensic interviews, parole commission decisions aren't final. They are subject to internal review, the governor's review, and ultimately review by other commissioners.

It has come to light during these reviews, known as an en banc review, that there is a need to provide additional discretion in order to further the goals that we can all agree on, ensuring the release of only those who do not pose any reasonable risk of danger to society. We can appreciate that these parole decisions aren't easy. There are lots of things to balance, due process rights, public safety risk, victims, and the public's interest.

In order to honor prior federal court decisions that required California to implement measures to reduce prison overcrowding and establish additional parole mechanisms while still providing the flexibility for the state of California to balance these various interests, paramount being public safety, Senate Bill 1446 provides additional discretion for en banc review while still ensuring that those decisions are transparent in order to protect the general public.

The amendments reflect our attempt to fine tune that process as we continue to have conversations with criminal justice partners and the board of parole hearings to advance our shared goals to ease the public while respecting the constitutional civil rights of everyone in the process.

With that I ask respectfully for an I vote on SB 1446, I do not have any principal witnesses in support of the bill.

Alright. Without any principal witnesses, we'll ask people who are in favor of the bill if they'd like to express that by coming up to the mic, state your name, the organization you represent, and your support for the bill. You can do that now. If not, I will ask for any are you gonna go ahead? Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Good morning, Mister Vice Chair on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, my name is Matthew Greco. We're here in support.

Thank you, sir. Okay. At this time, we'll take anybody who would like to be a principal primary witness against the measure. You can come up, sit in these couple of Chairs wherever you're comfortable, but it has to be these two chairs. And, yeah, you each have two minutes.

And because of the length of our hearing today, we're really gonna try to, stay on that two minute. Whichever of you would like to start first, you may go proceed. There you go. You're on.

Thank you to the esteemed Chair, to the Vice Chair, and Members of the public safety committee for your thoughtful consideration of the parole process. My name is James King. I serve as director of programs for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. I'm here today in respectful opposition to SB 1446, a bill which would loosen restrictions on the the parole hearing process and make an already conservative process considerably more restrictive. Doge me for a moment

as a formerly incarcerated person who went through the parole process and the en banc process, I never thought I'd be testifying not to change the current system. Of the 21 parole commissioners, 17 come from a law enforcement background. They're former wardens, police officers, and prosecutors. Before finding anyone suitable, they review all documentation from the parole candidate's incarceration history. They review a comprehensive risk assessment conducted by a forensic psychologist.

And finally, they hold a hearing with survivors in the district office district attorney's office also often participating. Following a rigorous assessment, they make their determination and afterward, the decision is reviewed to ensure it's factually and legally correct. Additionally, the psychologist provides the board with information about risk to others including risk of sexual violence or other violence, so a second assessment by the state mental hospitals as proposed by this bill would be redundant. The governor initiated en banc referral stand as the final check-in the system.

The current guardrails around what the en banc panel considers protects the process from undue political influence.

We can imagine a future governor who takes issue with the very notion of second chances. I personally empathize deeply with the survivors and the Ella Baker Center and allied organizations strongly support investments in better victim services to make survivors and their families whole to every extent possible. We must emphasize, however, that removing the existing guardrails subverts our art towards a more just and balanced system. Thank you.

Thank you very much, and thank you for adhering to the two minutes. You may begin your testimony.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you for allowing me to be here. My name is Darby Onoshek and I'm an attorney at Uncommon Law, an organization that represents people serving life sentences in California. I'm here today to oppose SB 1446 which would create confusion, reduce integrity and waste resources without improving safety for any of us. First, the bill changes the en banc review process for certain parole grants.

This will create confusion and inconsistency by subjecting grants to different review processes solely based on when the review was requested. Additionally, changing the substantive standard of review raises ex post facto concerns that will likely lead to costly litigation. Finally, rescinding a parole decision without holding a rescission hearing would very likely be unconstitutional under the cases Inray Pruitt and Morrissey v Brewer. Second, this bill would publicize the names and votes of commissioners in en banc decisions.

Those decisions are supposed to be based on law and evidence, but this bill would force commissioners to decide whether following the law is worth getting harassed, doxed, or worse.

Finally, this bill would expand the SBP process to include people serving life sentences, ensnaring already strained resources of state and county agencies in order to duplicate the analysis that the California parole board already does without any analysis needing to be redone. California already has one of the lowest parole grant rates in the country. And our parole board is even more conservative when it comes to people convicted of sex offenses with grant rates dropping to as low as five percent.

The few people who are granted parole have an exceptionally low recidivism rate of less than three percent. Everyone in this room wants and deserves public safety.

But no matter what your vision of public safety looks like, sinking resources into a problem that does not exist will not achieve that vision. Thank you.

Thank you.

To wrap up. Thank you. Alright. Anybody else who wishes to express opposition to this bill can come to the microphone, express your opposition and name and organization you represent.

Good morning. Glenn Backus, entering the opposition of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. Thank you.

Good morning. Lily Perotori Uncommon Law in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Marco George on behalf of the California Public Defender's Association in opposition.

Good morning. Israel Via with the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice in respectful opposition.

Alright. Thank you all for your testimony and coming up and expressing your opinions today. At this time, we'll bring it back to the dais, which is, I guess, just me. You may close.

Well well, thank you, Mister Chair.

You know, what this bill does is one specifies that the governor, when the governor requests an en banc review, that commissioners have additional discretion to evaluate the granting panel's decision, specifies that the decision, the vote of the commissioners during an en banc review are public record, and clarifies that the of Corrections or Rehabilitation may refer an any incarcerated person, whether serving an indeterminate sentence or a determinate sentence to the State Department of Hospitals for sexually violent predator evaluation if they meet the criteria and either scheduled to be released or up for parole.

The amendments that we are also making to the bill clarify that the standard review is whether the granting panel's decision was supported by substantial evidence while still deferring to the panel's factual findings and credibility determinations, not substantially changing the criteria that the, the board of parole commissioners would consider in the process of determining whether, a person is suitable for parole.

Clarifies that the commissioners are viewing a parole decision have the discretion to order a new hearing, rescind the proposed decision not based on new information or set the case for rescission, requires

the en banc decision to include a statement of reasons. And once again clarifies that c d the CDCR referral for SBP evaluation happened six months prior to the incarcerated person's parole hearings. I just wanna clarify what the bill does and what the amendments would do.

Once again, it's it's largely preserving the criteria and discretion of the board of parole commissioners, but ensuring that when there's an en banc review, that the commissioners would not just consider the public record, but need to look at whether there's substantial evidence to support the determination. And I agree that in most instances, the the determinations on parole suitability, are supported by the evidence and balanced public safety interests, with whether the individual, is suitable for parole.

We certainly know of some recent, very high profile, decisions by the board of parole commissioners of sexually violent predators who've been released. And, really, this is intending to to clarify the law, to improve the process, to make sure we're balancing public safety, and also making sure that people that are suitable for parole can be considered for parole with that I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I will.

Thank you very much for your testimony on your bill today. We do not have a quorum right now. So we will take the vote up later when we do establish a quorum. Thank you all for being here. And we will be moving on to the next item as soon as I pass the gavel.

Okay. Our next bill in the special order business is file item three, SB 1278 by Senator Niello. I see the Senator present. Good morning.

And if there are any principal witnesses, Senator, they're welcome to join us. And ever whenever you're ready to present, Senator, you may begin.

Good morning.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. So today, I am presenting, SB 1278. Some bills are about policy. Some are about process.

This bill is about people and the lifelong trauma inflicted on victims, SB 1278 asks a simple but very important question. Should the worst predators be eligible for release simply because they turn 50? Under current law, California allows individuals convicted of heinous sexual crimes to become eligible for parole after just twenty years served regardless of sentence, and after reaching the elderly age of 50. That eligibility is not theoretical. It's happening.

And I'll talk about a few. In 1999, serial child predator David Funston was convicted by a jury of kidnapping and sexually assaulting seven children all under seven years of age. One victim was five years old, kidnapped, and taken to the remote mountains for hours, horrifically assaulted, and later abandoned on the side of the road. She was found beaten, crying, and wandering alone. She could have been killed.

He then lured a four year old girl into his vehicle. He took her to a residence, bathed with her, dressed her in different clothing, held a knife to her throat, and forced multiple sex acts on her causing bleeding. I apologize for being so graphic, but this is an important part of the issue. Funston was convicted of multiple crimes. The judge sentenced Funston to the Max, three life terms plus twenty years, telling him, and I quote the judge, you are the monster parents fear most.

There is no man on the face of this earth who deserves this sentence more than you, mister Funston. He was sentenced to die in prison yet under California's elderly parole law, he is eligible for parole. He has been deemed safe to reenter society. And the only reason he was not released was because Placer County has arrested him on another child abuse case from 1996. They chose not to prosecute at the time because there was no concern he would ever get out of prison.

Yet here we are. Now consider Gregory Vogelsang, nearly 30 counts of sexual abuse involving children ages five to 11. A sentence of three fifty five years. These are not one time mistakes. These are patterns of calculated, might one say, habitual repeated harm.

Even if parole is denied, the process itself causes damage. It reopens old wounds wounds by forcing families and victims to revisit trial trial records, review graphic as evidence, prepare statements, and sometimes testify in person forced to face the perpetrator and prove once again why sometimes people think that criminals have more rights than victims. SB 1278 makes a clear targeted change by excluding enhanced sentences for rape, sodomy, lewd acts, and habitual or serial sexual offenses from eligibility, for elder parole.

This bill does not eliminate elder parole. It draws a line where it matters most.

These sentences are not arbitrary. They reflected the severity, the pattern, and the irreparable harm of their crimes. SB 1278 ensures that those sentences are respected, and victims are respected, and not forced back into the system again and again. California already recognizes limits in other parole programs such as the youth offender parole program, which excludes certain sex offenses, offenses, offenses from eligibility. The opposition argued that elderly parole program is cost saving, and that money could be better spent elsewhere like roads, etcetera.

But I ask you, is cost saving worth the revictimization of people? Is it worth the sleepless nights or living in fear? The thought of what if they do it again? SB 1278 is about drawing a moral line to commit to protect the victims, respect sentences, and recognize that some crimes leave permanent scars. Turning 50 does not absolve people from of their crimes or heal the wounds of survivors.

I have as a witness here, Matt Greco, San Diego DA office.

Hi. Good morning. You have two minutes to adjust the committee on the bill.

Thank you.

You wanna move the microphone closer. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and hopefully, that won't count against my two minutes. Thank you, Chair and Vice Chair. My name is Matthew Greco. I'm a Deputy District Attorney in San Diego, which is a, cosponsor of the bill. I'm also here on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association, in support of, SB 1278, which strengthens public safety by excluding dangerous sex offenders from eligibility under the elderly parole program.

Recently California's elderly parole program made headlines for the Reese, release of Gregory Vogelsang. Vogelsang is a 57 year old sex offender convicted of 30 counts of kidnapping and sex crimes against multiple children between the ages of 5 and 11 in the 1990's. Vogelsang was released after serving only 27 of his three fifty five year sentence to the surprise and disappointment of mothers and fathers and victims. And the entire community was shocked. 355 was a 90% off sale for their victimization.

Vogelsang was released. And his release occurred on the heels of a board of parole hearings decision to release David Funston after serving only twenty years of seventy five years of his life sentence for 16 counts of kidnapping and child molestation. SB 1278 appropriately ensures that individuals like Vogelstein and Funston convicted of violent sexual offenses remain ineligible for parole early, early parole consideration.

Specifically, this bill would exclude from the elderly parole program the crimes of rape, sodomy, oral copulation, lewd or lascivious acts with the child, sexual penetration. This bill would also exclude sex offender sentence under the one strike law and sentenced as habitual sexual offenders.

California has made significant efforts in recent years to reform the parole system, but those efforts must be balanced with the need to protect the public and respect the rights of crime victims. SB 1278 would not repeal the statutory elderly parole program. SB 1278 simply seeks to narrow the eligibility criteria for elderly parole. Inmates would still be eligible for

Thank you. If you can please complete your comments.

Thank you.

For these reasons-

If I could say my my second witness is not here.

Oh, okay.

So perhaps he could have a little bit more minutes. Certainly. Thank you.

I'm almost done. I will wrap it up. I understand we're under time pressure. So thank you. Would still be eligible for a three judge panel.

For all of these reasons, San Diego, District Attorney's Office and CDA is happy, to support SB 1278 and would urge this committee, committees aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now take any members of the public wishing to express support for SB 1278. If you can please push the microphone and say your name, organization, and position on the bill. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1278? Okay.

Seeing no one come forward, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill. And you'll have two minutes to address the committee, meet you testimony of those in opposition to SB 1278.

Good morning. Thank you for your time. My name is Lily Perotori, and I'm the director of legal services at Uncommon Law, where for nearly a decade, I've represented people convicted of serious and violent crimes, including crimes of sexual violence in the parole process. And I'm in respectful opposition of this bill. From my work, I understand and acknowledge how deeply harmful crimes of sexual violence are.

My opposition to this bill in no way discounts those experiences and harms. And instead, my opposition is rooted in my belief that this bill will not result in increased levels of public safety. Instead, this bill will unravel the progress California has made in safely releasing rehabilitated parole candidates and accelerate fear based policies that put politics over public safety. The elderly program for parole is strenuous. To be granted parole after a conviction for sexual violence is extremely difficult.

The Parole Board requires evidence based programming regarding sexual violence, positive psychological evaluations, and a battery of tests examining risk for future sexual violence, and robust parole plans ensured continued compliance with sex offender treatment. When the Board does grant parole, which it does in only sixteen percent of scheduled scheduled elderly parole hearings, it's because the evidence overwhelmingly supports the decision. The public narrative that people convicted of sexual violence are especially dangerous and cannot change is false, and carving them out of this program is not evidence based.

There has never been a single documented case of sexual re offense from this program. Aging also significantly impacts sexual recidivism.

Most people convicted of sexual offenses do not re offend, and the likelihood of re offense declines significantly with age. Data is clear. The carve outs in this bill are simply not based in the facts. And last, these carve outs are also wasteful of taxpayer dollars. The health care costs alone to incarcerate someone over the age of 70 are almost $140,000 a year.

We should be investing that money in real healing for survivors and the people in our prisons who are ready to come home. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair, Members of the public safety hearing for your thoughtful consideration of the matter before you. My name is James King. I'm director of programs at the Ella Baker Center, and I'm before you today in opposition to SB 1278, a bill we believe will substantially harm efforts to incentivize rehabilitation for people with very serious convictions. As my colleague noted, the current parole board hearing process is extremely conservative and rigorous.

Of those who do earn their way out through the parole board hearings, the overwhelming majority stay out.

Currently, only two to four percent of people who are released through this process recidivate and less than one percent are convicted of new crimes against people. Once released, those who fall under the category we are discussing today undergo an extensive post release post release parole supervision process. They're typically given ankle monitors, weekly lie detector tests, extensive mandated self help programming, frequent check ins with their parole officers. These conditions may extend for the remainder of their lifetimes unless extraordinary circumstances demonstrate otherwise.

People in prison with the types of convictions this bill includes already face significant barriers to pursuing rehabilitation.

Undermining incentives to them pursuing change will send the wrong message. Lastly, elderly parole is not a get out of jail early card. It's an opportunity for the commissioners to do a careful review of whether it is still within the state's best interest to incarcerate them, knowing that elderly people are not only the least likely cohort to recidivate, they are also the cohort that most significantly drives the cost of incarceration.

The elderly parole process was initially authorized by the federal receivership that oversees our correctional system, not due to altruism or a lack of empathy for survivors and victims, but because our rapidly aging prison population is a solvable problem. Making elderly parole more restrictive risk undermining the progress California has made towards making our correctional system constitutionally compliant.

We've been down that road before, and we know it doesn't work. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll invite any members of the public wishing to express opposition to SB 1278 to please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. I'm assuming you're in support.

Yes. Yes.

Good good assumption. Sorry for speaking out of turn, but Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association supported the bill.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1278?

Israel Via with CYCJ in support. I mean, in opposition. I'm sorry.

Good morning, Chair, Members. George Parem, through on behalf of ACLU California Action in respect of opposition. Thank you.

Luis Rojas with the Peace and Justice Law Center in opposition.

Good morning. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Mica Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in opposition.

Darby Ahonasek with Uncommon Law in respectful opposition.

Adrianna Griffith with Initiate Justice in opposition.

Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1278? Okay. We'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments? Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you and thank you for tackling this. I know it's controversial for some. It's not controversial for me. I don't consider 50 years old to be old at all. In fact, I don't consider 60 year old to be old at all.

That's just a number. And, and, this process that has been developed in the in the interest of justice, does not provide justice for families. I've seen it firsthand. I have a a friend of our families who who their four year old was was killed, strangled, probably molested, but they didn't charge him for that because they were getting him on murder. And they thought he was going away for life.

But since he's turned 50, he's had three parole hearings. Three. Every couple of years, they drag him out, have him answer the questions. Unfortunately, they're not coaching him enough how to answer them right. And so he always gets stumped on one of the questions.

And and even though we are beating up on the parole board today, they did the right thing this time. They put them away back back away for five more years. But every time that happens, they have to come out. They have to relive this nightmare that happened to their daughter. And you can just read it in the transcripts.

It's it's brutal. In this is lost. We we lose this this concept that prison is yeah. We try to rehabilitate people. Some people deserve rehabilitative efforts and they respond to those real but there's also a justice for the victims part of this.

There is no therapy for having your four year old strangled and killed. The therapy is that person doesn't ever get out. They chose to do that act, and that's what they chose for themselves. If there was a death penalty, they would get the death penalty. There since we do not have that, they get to go away and spend the rest of their lives.

I don't care till they're 90 thinking about what they did to that family. And that family should never ever have to worry about even a 90 year old getting out because somehow he's paid the price for killing a four year old. So I see this as a whole different type of issue. And and part of that is this nonsense that we've come up with elderly parole and started it at 50. So this bill makes sense, at least a little bit.

It moves it to 60 or or the the the number is 60 for these. But these sexually violent predators, there's just no way. No way you can reconcile that with the general public out there. Because if that guy, mister Funston, moved next door to you guys, anybody in this room, You know what? You'd move.

You'd move. Can't tell me any different. Because if you wouldn't, then you should step up and offer the parole board a a a room in your house or the house next door. If you want these folks running around out in the out in the public. And if you don't think there were a public safety risk, hey, you know, bring them in.

Take care of them. So, yes, I will be supporting your bill, and I hope that we arrive at some kind of sense that this is about justice for victims as well. And they and that comes first, not second or third. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Senator, I'll turn over you to close.

I appreciate that. So it was, first of all, I'm not here to argue against elderly parole. Although, I do think we ought to rethink what is elderly. Originally, the three judge panel placed it at 60. And for some reason, the legislature felt it wise to reduce that to 50.

But nonetheless, I'm not arguing against that program, generally. Nor am I arguing against rehabilitation or existing incentives for rehabilitation. But there are some crimes that not just with regard to sensitivity and respecting the rights of victims, But there are some crimes behaviors that suggest that rehabilitation that is overcoming that person's burning desire to do those horrible heinous acts cannot be changed.

Mister Vogel saying in the evaluations prior to his initial decision to be released, said that he was still attracted to young boys between the ages of 5 and 12. And yet the first panel decided to release him.

The it was stated that this bill would not make us more safe. I would suggest that not passing this bill, particularly if mister Vogelsang had been released and he was the only reason he wasn't released was because of public outcry. He'd be out on the streets now. I would suggest that not passing this bill, that would make things less safe. We must respect victims.

Yes. And we must respect at least pay initial respect to initial sentencing and look behind the behavior that motivated that very severe sentencing. Not in all cases of elder elderly parole consideration, but in some that are particularly heinous. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you for joining us today. We do not yet have a quorum, but we're entering a motion when we establish a quorum. Thank you. Thank you.

So that completes our special order business at the top of our agenda. And so we we do take up measures and file order, but do you have an agreement to let Senator Artuleta go first? Okay. Thank you. So, with the agreement of the authors present, we'll proceed now to file item 21, Senate Bill 1354 by Senator Archuleta.

Good morning.

And if you have any witnesses, Senator, they could please join us.

Yes. I do.

Whatever you're ready to present. Okay.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, thank you, and committee members. I wanna start off by accepting the committee amendments and thank committee staff for working with me and engage with me on this bill. We work for quite a number of hours to reach that agreement, but we have.

Members, it's with great sense of duty that I present Senate Bill 1354, which would prohibit military personnel not operating under Title 10 from another state, territory, or district to enter California to perform military or law enforcement functions without the express permission of the Governor of the State of California.

The bill's clear prohibition is on out-of-state, unapproved military activity, reinforces the Governor's constitutional authority as our commander in chief here in the state of California, which includes state militia. It ensures California retains control over any armed or law enforcement operations conducted within its borders. Unfortunately, California is well aware of what it's like to have a national guard activated in our state without the express permission from our Governor. California should not live in fear of unwanted military involvement from any other state National guard.

I want to clarify this bill does not affect the activation of the guard under Title 10.

This legislation would not impact current mutual aid agreements, such as the Emergency Management Assistant Compact, or prohibit outside military personnel from attending schools or training here in California. At least seven other states have passed similar legislation that prohibits outside forces from entering their states, including Maryland, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho, North Carolina, and Washington. Oregon currently has legislation pending similar to our bill. This measure perhaps will prevent misuse of military power.

With me today is Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, and I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Well, thank you, Senator. Before I go to Miss George, I just wanna summarize the amendment that the author has accepted, that the committee requested. It's Section 570, Subsection B, striking the criminal penalty. And the reason for that is technically, the criminal penalty would be against individual service members who were deployed. And I think the issue is the executive, or the president, or whoever, is deploying those individuals.

The Attorney General can still enforce the statute and file legal action against a particular state that's in violation of the statute. So there are penalties and accountability mechanisms in the bill. So I just wanna summarize that amendment. I'll turn over to Miss George to present.

Good morning. Thank you. Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. And thank you to the author and to the committee for the amendment. The California Public Defenders Association is proud to support SB 1354, which sends a clear message to the governors of other states who might be tempted to send their state National Guard units to California without their express request or permission of the Governor.

SB 1354 would make it illegal for military personnel from another state or territory to enter California to perform military law enforcement functions without the express permission of the governor. And according to the amendment would apparently give the Attorney General the authority to enforce that. Californians are grateful for the assistance that the Nevada and Wyoming National Guard provided in multiple air and ground fighting efforts, as the wildfires raged across the Los Angeles Basin and Southern California in January 2025.

Although it's unclear if other states' National Guards were mobilized and arrived in Los Angeles in June 2025, a number of states volunteered their National Guard to assist with immigration enforcement and other states in Washington DC. Responding to request from Trump, GOP governors from nine states have agreed to activate their guard troops under Title 32 for deployment in the District of Columbia.

Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Tennessee. As public defenders, we have long witnessed how unauthorized and overly aggressive law enforcement actions, particularly those involving militarized tactics and racial profiling, inflict deep and lasting harm on our clients and communities. SB 1354 is a critical safeguard affirming that Californians will not tolerate unlawful or uncoordinated incursions by outside state or federal forces that threaten our residents' constitutional rights, safety, and peace of mind.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1354? You can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

You should be able to speak.

Luis Rojas, with the Peace and Justice Law Center, in support.

Thank you.

Israel Villa, with the California Alliance for Youth & Community Justice, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1354? Seeing no one come forward, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition, SB 1354. Seeing no one come forward, we'll take anyone wishing to express opposition to SB 1354.

Okay. Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais. Thank you, Senator, for this bill. This is extremely important. Thank you for working with our committee staff on the amendment, which does give the Attorney General the authority to enforce this against any governor, or president, or federal agency that seeks to send military personnel into our state without us requesting them to come.

It's unfortunate that we have to take this action, but I think this is a critical measure to protect our state and to ensure that other states and our federal government are acting within the bounds of our Constitution.

And as a proud veteran and somebody who served this country, I really appreciate you bringing this forward. I'll turn over to close.

Good. Thank you. And of course, committee members, I respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Okay. Thank you. We don't have a quorum, so we'll obtain a motion when we establish a quorum. But thank you, Senator. We'll proceed now to the back and file order to File Item 6, SB 926 by Senator Strickland.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members, I'm here this morning to present SB 926. Proposition 36, The Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act, was approved by the voters with 68% of the vote on November 2024 general election ballot. Notably, it passed all 58 counties, affirmatively. I've been an active a long time.

I can't recall the last initiative that passed all 58 counties. Its provisions are now in state law and in effect, having added sections to the Health and Safety Code, the Penal Code, and the Government Code. The purpose of my bill is simple and straightforward. It was introduced to provide funding for the implementation and ongoing administration of this law. The cities, counties and public officials of the state are required to implement the new provisions of this law.

I believe that the state should be providing adequate funding for our cities and counties to implement this initiative. I would hope that each of you would join me in supporting our cities and counties and believe that together, we can obtain the necessary funding. The most essential role of government is public safety. I have discussed this bill with the Chair and the committee and proposed amendments. I thank the Chair and his staff for his cooperation and accept the committee amendments.

Those amendments remove the specific appropriation while recognizing the program services and functions that require the funding, so we can continue to work on this issue. So I wanna make sure we are understanding. I'm accepting the committee's amendments in order to get this moving forward. And I also, it's in your committee analysis, that I requested the budget funding through the normal budget process. With me today are two witnesses who provide comments.

Jolena Voorhis from the League of California Cities and Amy Costa from the Chief Probation Officers of California and the California State Sheriffs Association, and the California District Attorneys Association. Thank you for being here.

Alright. Thank you. And each of you will have two minutes. Go ahead.

I'm gonna clock in at a minute. Good morning. My name is Amy Costa. Good morning, Mr. Chair. As stated, I'm here on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association, the California District Attorneys Association, and the Chief Probation Officers of California in support of SB 926.

Unfortunately, many of us have a personal experience with a loved one who has struggled with substance use disorder. We know how incredibly difficult it can be for those battling addiction to successfully complete treatment. It is even more difficult and complex for justice-involved individuals to overcome substance use disorder. Successful completion of treatment for substance use disorders, whether someone is justice-involved or not, requires support.

For individuals who are justice-involved, it requires treatment support and a full system response to provide them the best chance at rehabilitation.

These support services ensure individuals are paired with the best treatment options for their unique circumstances and assistance to complete their treatment. SB 926 provides a reasonable funding methodology for providing local governments with funding to provide both treatment and support services. Counties are managing increasingly complex cases requiring structured treatment, physical detention, and increased monitoring. This methodology also ensures people can be served in a variety of environments. Many of the individuals who are in our jails will need treatment and support.

Probation is critical in connecting the court's treatment and accountability. Probation is seeing impacts in our pretrial caseloads and can be instrumental during drug court or felony probation when Prop 36 defendants are not in an incarcerated setting. The committee amendments would make the amount of funding subject to legislative appropriation. Recently, the Senate Budget Committee released its state budget plan, which did include funding for exactly this purpose.

We look forward to continuing these conversations with policymakers to ensure these local efforts, which provide the best chance at treatment success, are funded. We thank the author for bringing forward this important measure, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Mr. Chair and members, Jolena Voorhis, on behalf of the League of California Cities. We are in support of SB 926, which would provide that Proposition 36 fund to be provided to key services and supports. As the Senator said, if you go back to 2024, remember, we're experiencing a lot of smash and grabs, organized retail theft, shoplifting, and people were seeing this in their everyday lives in the grocery stores and retailers.

In 2024, the voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 36, which made changes to existing law related to fentanyl, organized retail theft, and shoplifting, and created a new treatment mandate felony. For the League of California Cities, one of the key reasons they were in support of Proposition 36 was due to the focus on treatment and diversion, not on returning to mass incarceration.

Last year, the legislature provided a 100 million to fund the implementation of Proposition 36 with funding to behavioral health, trial courts, and public defenders. However, absence from this list of services is funding for probation and other assessment needs for these very complex cases. As proposed to be amended, SB 926 will provide, upon appropriation, funding the key services needed to provide treatment and services.

These amendments are consistent with Cal City's priority and advocacy related to Proposition 36 and the budget request submitted by Senator Blakespear and Assemblymember Nguyen. And this bill would continue to emphasize the legislature's priority to fund Proposition 36 and address the will of the voters.

For these reasons, we are in support of this bill and urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you very much. At this time, people, if you're in support of the bill, may come up and state your name, your support, and then your organization that you represent.

Thank you, senators. Paul Yoder, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists. They just took a support position very end of the week. I owe you a letter, but urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. On behalf of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, the Orange County Sheriff's Department, and the San Bernardino County Police Chiefs and Sheriffs Association, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express support for SB 926? Seeing no one else. Would now take two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 926. Is anyone wishing to testify?

And you'll each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

Who would like to begin?

Great. Thank you. I'll start. Good morning, Chair, members, staff. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice, or CSJ, here today in respectful opposition to SB 926, the Funding of Prop 36 Act, authored by Senator Strickland.

While we acknowledge the voters intent with Prop 36 and the need for increased investments in behavioral health, even with the recent amendments, SB 926 is a fiscally reckless solution that fundamentally misallocate the state's resources. As California faces a significant budget shortfall and ongoing cuts to federal funding, this bill would funnel hundreds of millions of dollars from the general fund into sheriff's county probation and other entities without necessary transparency or accountability guardrails. Our opposition is rooted in three critical concerns. First, fiscal irresponsibility.

Diverting general fund resources at this time is unsustainable, particularly when those funds are funneled towards agencies that already have established revenue streams while leaving out essential providers impacted by Prop 36 implementation, like indigent defense. We cannot prioritize a flawed funding bill when our essential investments in behavioral health, food security, housing and health care are at risk.

Next, lack of accountability. SB 926 fails to include robust guidance on how funds will be divided among receiving entities. It creates a new public safety services support fund but lacks the guardrails to ensure these dollars are used effectively.

Thirdly, redundant funding. This bill overlooks existing resources already flowing to the same, these same agencies. Specifically, the $2,000,000,000 annual investment through AB 109, which design which is designed for the exact purpose of managing and rehabilitating non-serious, non violent offenders at the county level. California cannot afford to fund redundancies while life-saving public safety services are at the risk of collapse. Like our trauma recovery centers or our TRCs, without immediate state action, thousands of survivors will lose access to these critical services that the TRCs provide.

Furthermore, the Senate Democrats have maintained a $100,000,000 allocation for Prop 36 in the 26/27 budget plan, and we believe the annual budget process for fiscal fiscally responsible venue for these conversations and decisions

You're you're at times. Please complete your comments.

While we fully endorse dedicating more resources to behavioral health and treatment, the bill is misguided, and rather than addressing the most urgent, treatment-centered needs for our communities, the bill shifts funding towards probation departments and loosely defined entities. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hi, good morning.

Yeah, good morning, Chair, committee, staff, committee members. My name is Claudia Gonzalez. I'm a Senior Program Associate at Vera California. We are a local initiative of the Vera Institute of Justice, a criminal justice advocacy and research organization. I'm here today to strongly oppose SB 927 by Senator Strickland.

SB 926 seeks $400,000,000 in funding for Prop 36, a 2024 initiative that misled voters. Prop 36 promised expanded treatment and to end homelessness. It has delivered neither. While SB 926 would deliver needed funding for treatment, it will not address the reasons this policy has failed so far. Proponents of Prop 36 explicitly said to voters, "Proposition 36 is not about going back to an era of mass incarceration.

This is about creating a new era of mass treatment for the underlying condition, fueling so many thefts and driving so many people into homelessness." As jail populations statewide continue increasing towards pandemic levels, it is clear this is not true. In addition to funding treatment, this bill delivers a massive influx of funding to incarcerate people. In an earlier draft of the bill, the bill suggested that only one-third of funding would go to treatment. This is not what California voted for.

A recent poll asked more than 5,000 Californians what the state should prioritize to funding to support Prop 36. 59% said treatment and 56% said transitional housing and job training. On the other hand, only 22% just said jails and courts. But lack of treatment funding is not the only reason this is not working. A judicial council report found only 17% of people charged with treatment-mandated felonies have opted to receive treatment.

This suggests that coercing people into treatment is not as effective as high quality voluntary and community based treatment. Unfortunately, Prop 36 takes money away from many of these programs. Under Prop 36, Californias are still languishing in jail instead of receiving treatment. They are being charged with harsh felonies that make it more difficult for them to find housing, jobs, second opportunities, and rebuild stable lives. This is why

To interrupt. If you can, please complete your comment.

Yes. This is why one in four voters believes the state should repeal Prop. 36. California should invest in real solutions to homelessness and addiction. And for this reason, we ask the legislature to please reject SB 926. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 926? Please set your name, organization, position on the bill.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition. We will review the amendments. We'll likely still be opposed, but we will review and consider.

Thank you.

Good morning. Evan Fern with Disability Rights California in opposition.

Luis Rojas with the Peace and Justice Law Center in opposition.

Israel Villa with California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice in opposition.

Thank you.

Carlos Montoya with the All Youth Are Sacred in opposition.

Shivani Nishar, on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance, we will also review the amendments, but currently in opposition.

Good morning. Alex Tuchman with the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office Union Local 148, in opposition.

Mica Doctroff on behalf of Smart Justice California. We're also opposed and will review the amendments.

Good morning, Marco George, we'll review the amendments, but at this point, we remain opposed on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. Thank you.

George Frampton on behalf of ACLU California Action, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

And apologies. Ryan Morimune with California State Association of Counties in support of SB 926.

Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 926?

Okay. Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais. I just wanna summarize the amendments and thank you for the author, to working with the committee. The amendments to the following, delete the $400,000,000 appropriation. That's something that will be addressed through the budget process. I'll note that the Senate Democrats do have a proposed a $100,000,000 in this in their budget plan.

Delete police and district attorneys as being eligible for the grant program. So if this bill were to pass in the sum of the governor, funding would be prioritized for county Behavioral Health Departments by treatment, to support interventions in the community offset incarceration costs, to county probation departments, and for administrative costs.

And to delete the word fully from subdivision d, because the the prior language said that, prior language said that, that the, governor shall include a proposed transfer to, forever amount sufficient to fully fund, the ongoing, administration of the Prop 36 Act. And, you know, this is ultimately, gonna be addressed through the budget process, and we need to determine what the sufficient amount is, and other conforming changes. So thank you to the author for working with us on these amendments and Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you very much, and thank you for bringing a bill that shouldn't be necessary because the, the voters already spoke on this. You don't get to come up and and and undo the voters' will. We we can't make a law that says that. You'd have to go through a petition process, a referendum process, and, put it back on the ballot and, put it in in in in words of what you want to do.

The issue here is that, no, Proposition 36 has not worked out as intended because we haven't funded it. And we haven't funded the adjacent the other, the the the infrastructure that's required for these things to work the right way.

In order for a proposition 36 person to come through and choose that drug treatment over jail, there has to be a judge, there has to be facilities, there has to be probation to follow-up on them, to make sure that they got the treatment and that they didn't didn't just come in and say, yes. I'm gonna go get treatment and go out and not get treatment. That whole thing, if if we don't fund, we we can't complain that it's not working.

Yeah. All this is telling us is all, the the voters said "would they want to help?" That's what I've been hearing for four years. We need to help these people get off their addictions because that's why they're doing their crimes. But then we underfund every piece of what's going to help them.

And our and and the what we were doing before, just simply trying to fund the the the help that's out there for them, and and having, you know, trying to fund that and and having it be a choice that they make before they do their crime, they're not doing it. They're not making that choice. So, what we're left with is, we need, we have work to do, and it's a priority because the the the residents, the voters in California told us it's a priority.

And and if we wanna help people, then that's what we're gonna have to do. We need to strengthen the court system.

We need to put the judges in that are going to be able to make these go through quickly enough so people can get their treatment. And we're gonna have to have a probation department can help people follow-up on that stuff. And and we need to fully fund the part where the behavioral services are paid for and things like that that this bill that this proposition promise. We can't underfund it and say it's it's failing. The only thing that's failing is our leadership in that case.

So I'll be supporting your bill.

Thank you. Senator Cortese, we're on SB 926 by Senator Strickland, the funding Prop. 36 act. If you have any questions or comments, I'll recognize you at this time. Okay. Thank you.

Just to address the bill, I wanna first be clear. I did not support Prop. 36 because it was an unfunded mandate. And, the proponents have promised that, this bill was gonna ensure that people with serious drug addiction issues were gonna get treatment. But there was no money in in the proposition, to increase funding for treatment. And what we're seeing, throughout California are people that are crowding our jails, because we don't have enough, treatment for those people.

We don't have enough staff to evaluate people and refer them to treatment, and we don't have enough treatment programs. So we have to increase our investment in treatment, in behavioral health treatment, substance use disorder treatment in California. But Prop. 36 is a law of California. The voters throughout the state spoke overwhelmingly and didn't support it passing this act.

So now it's our responsibility as a legislature and the governor to fund the implementation of this measure to honor the will of the voters and make sure it's working right.

Because right now, it's not working right Because this is woefully underfunded. And so, this ultimately will be addressed to the budget process, which is why I appreciate the author striking the specific dollar amounts in the bill. And once again, as the Chair of this committee and as a member of the Senate Democratic caucus, the Senate Democrats have included a $100,000,000, the ongoing implementation of Prop 36. I'll note that administration included no money for the implementation of Prop 36.

And so, it's critical that we continue our investment to make sure that this lot works the right way, that we're getting people connected to treatment, that we're keeping our neighborhood safe.

And so I appreciate the author bringing this forward. And with that, I'll turn over you to close unless Senator Cortese has any questions or comments. Okay. Senator Strickland.

First of all, Mr. Chair, I wanna thank you so much for your leadership as Chairman of this committee. I also wanna thank your staff for working with me on this particular item. You know, everybody can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. I happen to believe the most essential role of government is public safety. It it should be the first thing that gets funded, in my opinion, but I know we have, various opinions throughout the legislature.

I will say that, where we are today is this is implemented. 70%, almost nearly 70% of Californians voted for this initiative. And I can't recall the last initiative, that passed all 58 counties. That means overwhelming amount of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans said that they wanna make public safety a top priority and give law enforcement and local cities and counties the tools they need to keep us safe. Even my opposition said one in four voters said that they would like to repeal this initiative.

That means it's only 25%. We're talking about, again, over 70% of Californians nearly 70% of Californians voted for this in the affirmative. Where we are today, zero money is being put in for probation, which is the centerpiece and the accountability piece of this initiative. Another part that. I agree with you Mr. Chair, I actually think it's gonna be about $400,000,000 a year, and we can argue about that.

But even $400,000,000 a year, I think, is not enough and sufficient because I think our mental health issues in California are more severe than anybody thinks about in this legislature.

We need more data on that information, but I respect that that the Democrats are asking for a $100,000,000. I'm pushing for more because I think it's gonna need more money. But this bill allows me to at least keep the this discussion moving forward, and I appreciate you for allowing me to get this, moving forward. I am working on the budget side, asking for, funding, and I know our caucus, the Republican caucus is asking for funding, and that's something that we can come together with.

But this is the law of land.

As Senator Steyarto said, this is the law of land. And what we are seeing is it's gonna be a failure if we don't get proper resources on the ground, particularly, when it comes to probation and the accountability piece. And what it really comes down to, I was a mayor of a city. I know you were mayor of a city.

It becomes another unfunded mandate to cities and counties where they're asked to do, the job, but have nowhere near the adequate resources to do the job and the will of the people.

So I stand with, 70% of Californians, overwhelming amount of independence, Democrats, and Republicans who voted for this, and I'm pushing all 58 counties voted for this. And so I wanna keep this issue moving forward, and I appreciate the Chair's willingness to work with my my office to get this forward, and I really appreciate your staff's working. With that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We do not yet have a quorum. We need one more member. But when we do, we will entertain a motion on the bill.

Thanks again, Mr. Chair.

Thank you senator. Thank you witnesses for being here today. Okay. We'll move back and file order to file item four, SB 874 by Senator Weber-Pierson.

After which time we'll take up SB 1210 by Senator Doctor Weber Pearson. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair and colleagues. I wanna thank you for the opportunity to present SB 874. I accept the amendments from the Senate Health Committee that will be taken in this committee given a short time frame between the two committees. SB 874 strengthens oversight and standardization of behavioral health treatment services and Medi Cal.

Behavioral health treatment services include applied behavior analysis, commonly referred to ABA treatment, and other behavioral interventions that prevent or reduce behaviors that interfere with learning and social interaction, most commonly for children diagnosed with autism.

Recently, utilization of ABA services has grown significantly in both Medi Cal and the commercial market here in California and across the nation. Some of its growth is by design as the legislature has passed many bills to reduce barriers that families faced in accessing ABA services and to ensure that children could access behavioral health treatment early when it can be most beneficial.

However, as a result, a referral for behavioral health treatment services is simpler than many other referrals for many other Medi Cal specialty services, and many of these providers do not have the same licensing requirement as for other Medi Cal services. At the same time, we have seen several media reports documenting ABA services that were overcharged or overprescribed, and at least one ABA provider in California has been charged with false billing and settled.

Additionally, beginning in 2022, the Federal Office of Inspector General initiated audits of Medicaid payments for ABA services in several states.

In the four states reviewed to date, audits identified significant improper payment and compliance issues resulting in substantial repayment obligations. Prior to introducing this bill, I had in fact considered requesting an audit of the program. However, an audit review is largely for compliance and the real issue is whether the benefit itself needs additional parameters or guidance to ensure that children who need the benefit are the ones that get it and that families aren't unwittingly signed up for more hours than necessary.

Furthermore, we must prevent services from being delivered by paraprofessionals without adequate supervision who were not even required by statute to be fingerprinted despite their work with children. It is the issue of background checks that brings this bill within the jurisdiction of this committee.

SB 874 requires DHCS to take the following actions to evaluate and improve Medi Cal's behavioral treatment services, require background checks for BHT providers who are not already subject to fingerprinting during licensing, convene a stakeholder work group to advise on standards for BHT services, issue, and maintain clear clinical guidance for BHT services based on stakeholder input and federal guidance, and report to the legislature on BHT utilization and recommendations to improve program integrity and compliance.

Back in 2014, when these services were first added to Medi Cal, there were very few providers and much less awareness of services available. The services in the field have changed considerably, so now is a good time to conduct a thorough review. People who work with vulnerable children, whether in their homes or at treatment centers, should absolutely have a background check. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And with me today is Rachel Blaucher representing California Association for Behavioral Analysis and Katie Andrew from the Local Health Plans of California.

Thank you. And good morning. You each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

Good morning, Chair, Members. My name is Katie Andrew, and I'm here to speak in support of the SB 874 on behalf of the Local Health Plans of California, which represents all 17 local community based Medi Cal plans serving over 9,000,000 Californians. LHPC supports SB 874 because it strengthens critical safeguards to protect Medi Cal members, especially children, receiving behavioral health treatment services from unlicensed providers. The bill helps ensure these services are delivered safely by establishing a more consistent statewide approach to oversight.

In particular, the bill's requirement for a centralized process to collect and retain background check information is a key patient safety protection.

It helps ensure individuals who should not be providing care are appropriately screened out while also providing gaps, duplication, or inconsistent standards across the system. This focus on safety and accountability is especially important in today's environment of increased federal scrutiny. Strengthening program integrity and ensuring proper vetting of providers not only protects patients but also reinforce trust in the Medi Cal program. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote on SB 874. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi, good morning. Rachel Blucher with Nielsen Merksemer on behalf of the California Association for Behavior Analysis, CalABA. We are the professional membership association representing over 37,000 practitioners of behavior analysis in California. Our mission is to advance, promote, and protect the science and practice of behavior analysis. Our members provide applied behavioral analytic services or ABA services across a range of settings, including homes, schools, clinics, and community environments.

Many practitioners serve individuals diagnosed with autism and other developmental disabilities and these services are critical to improving functional outcomes and quality of life. We support SB 874 because it establishes important safeguards to ensure that individuals providing BHT services meet appropriate background check requirements, while also strengthening statewide clinical guidance and program integrity. The bill requires that unlicensed providers delivering Medi Cal BHT services undergo fingerprint or finger image based background checks and directs DHCS to specify how this information is collected and maintained.

This promotes both consumer protection and clarity for providers responsible for compliance. It also creates consistency across the industry.

So for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I will invite any members of the public wishing to express support for SB 874 to please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Okay. Don't, anyone after this gentleman.

Luis Rojas of Peace and Justice Law Center in support.

Thank you very much. Okay. Seeing no one else, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition, if there are any, to SB 874? And seeing no one come forward, is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 874? Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the dais.

Any questions or comments? Thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. It's extremely important, and I'll turn it over if you like to close.

I just wanna thank the committee, and at the appropriate time, respectfully ask for an aye vote on SBA 74.

And good morning, Senator.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr Chair and members. SB 1019 would establish a dedicated cargo theft task force in the Department of Justice to enhance coordination between federal, state, and local law enforcement and industry representatives to target the rise in cargo theft. I appreciate the committee's suggestions to add the data collection on cargo theft and the task force mission on the annual report and I'm happy to accept those amendments. Thank you, mister chair and your staff, for working with us.

Members from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to the rail corridors and highways across the Central Valley, California moves more goods than any other state in the nation. Our farms, factories, energy producers, and retailers depend on the freight network that works safely, efficiently, and without criminal interference. Unfortunately, that system is under coordinated attack by sophisticated criminal networks that operate across the state and national lines with little fear of consequence. These are not isolated thefts of petty crimes.

They are deliberate, strategic, operations designed to exploit gaps in the state law and weak coordination among enforcement agencies across different levels of government.

Nationwide, cargo theft costs the trucking industry an estimated $18,000,000 every day. Dollars 18,000,000 every day. Railroads have reported $100,000,000 in losses on last year alone, a 40% increase from the year before. Given California's role in the global trade gateway, the state bears a large share of these losses. Rail theft is a huge problem in rural communities with criminal crews monitoring train movements, identifying high value shipments, and striking when the chains the trains slow in a remote access area.

A perfect example of that is the Tehachapi Loop. It's an amazing feat to see where a train will wrap around the mountain several times, but they have to go very, very slow to not derail the train. There have been several videos, that, were submitted to me from cargo theft, individuals, and these people are well organized and well armed. This is not your average everyday criminal or homeless person walking down the road, seeing a train, and trying to break into it.

These people are throwing Molotov cocktails, grenades, all kinds of crazy stuff at these trains, and it's affecting the safety of the operators of those trains at the same time.

When one train is stalled, the whole system shuts down, which ceases the delivery of the products that we need to get to stores. Rail theft is a huge problem in rural counties. These theft rings move goods quickly across the city, country and state lines, making cases difficult to investigate and prosecute because as soon as they sell are still, you know, a thousand boxes of Nike shoes being released, it immediately goes to another state or another country for resale. They're very hard to catch.

Members, these are not mobs of teenagers or, swamps of lululemon outlets.

This is not what this is. They are organized criminal gangs. And like I said earlier, they are well armed and well organized. I appreciate the committee's support on the bill. If you haven't seen it, I would like to draw your attention to Milwaukee Tools' letter.

The company notes that they will no longer ship out of Southern California corridor, including ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, because of the frequent the frequent cargo losses that they have suffered. One of the other things that I wanna mention is is, Tyson Foods. And not that the perpetrators are interested in the food product, which are like chicken nuggets and things that go to feed our children in the food program that we provide for our schools.

But once the container of food is opened, it can no longer be used for resale. It has to be destroyed because you don't know if it was contaminated.

So we've lost millions upon millions of free and reduced lunches provided to our schools that taxpayers pay for in order for the our kids that are that can't afford lunch at school that we provide. They're losing out on that as well. S. B. The Department of Justice currently has a task program with eight separate task forces targeting a number of critical areas impacted by crime.

Each task force commander works closely with police, chiefs, sheriffs, and other local and state and federal agencies from Oregon to the Mexico border. SB 1039 would direct the Department of Justice to add a task force focusing on cargo theft moving through the interstate and interstate supply chain including goods in transit, warehouses, distribution centers, and other storage locations.

By creating a specialized intelligence driven unit, SB 1019 strengthens California abilities California's ability to protect supply chains, safeguard businesses, and disrupt organized cargo theft including operations targeting rail rail rail yards and freight lines. Again, from Long Beach, Los Angeles through the Central Valley and up north. I ask for your aye vote.

And with me here to support is Brian Lohrey, the Chief of Police and Protection for BNSF Railroad.

Hi. Good morning. You have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.

Chair Arreguin and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity for me to speak. My name is Brian Lowry, Chief of Police for BNSF Railway Police Department, and I'm here to represent BNSF as a sponsor for SB 1019. Cargo theft in California has evolved into a highly organized coordinated threat to the state supply chain. What we are seeing today is not petty theft. It is systematic criminal activity targeting rail lines, intermodal facilities, staging areas, and distribution centers, activity that disrupts service, endangers workers, and affects communities across the nation.

On 03/24/2026, along our Cajon and Sub and Needle subdivisions, we saw just how sophisticated these operations have become. 16 trains were impacted in a single night. Excuse me. We documented five sabotage events, including cut air hoses and tampered breaks, actions that could have caused catastrophic accidents. One train had a 111 burglaries alone.

Across multiple trains, dozens were breached. Hundreds of boxes of consumer goods were stolen. These groups moved with precision, bypassed locks, and disappeared before law enforcement could respond. Unfortunately, this is not unusual. Every day, our employees encounter tactics, such as suspects sabotaging safety systems for trains to stop climbing or cutting open railcars while they're in motion, dumping masses massive amounts of debris along the right of way, and even threatening workers with deadly weapons.

Routes serving California's ports are specially targeted to the point that some major shippers are choosing to route freight through other states to avoid the risk. This is why SB 1019 is so important. This bill establishes California cargo theft task force within the attorney general's office, an intelligence driven statewide unit designed to match the scale and complexity of the threat. It strengthens coordination among state and local law enforcement, improves information sharing, and supports target investigators investigations into organized deaf networks.

It also ensures that rail and freight industry expertise is incorporated into enforcement strategies, which is essential for operations that span multiple jurisdictions and move at high speed.

The bill's broad definition of cargo reflects how modern supply chains actually work, covering goods in transit and in temporary storage. And the required annual reporting beginning in 2028 will give the legislator clear avail avail sorry, clear visibility into theft trends. Recovered cargo and recommendations for strengthening enforcement. Cargo theft undermines California's economy, threatens worker and community safety, and weakens the reliability of the state supply chain. SB 1019 provides a coordinated statewide response needed to confront this challenge.

On behalf of BNSF, I respectfully urge your support. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1019? Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning. Nick Chappie with the California Trucking Association. We registered our position after the deadline, but we are in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members, Paul Yoder on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Beau Biller on behalf of the California Association of Port Authorities asking for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning. Faith Conley with Weideman Group on behalf of the Supply Chain Federation and strong support.

Good morning. Jennifer Curry with PPS. Thank you for your support.

Thank you. Okay. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1019, we will now move to opposition witnesses. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the Seeing no one come forward, is there anyone wishing to express opposition to SB 1019? Seeing no one else come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais for questions or comments.

Vice Chair Seyarto.

Alright. Thank you for bringing attention to this growing and growing and expanding problem that we're having in California. I appreciate you being here this morning.

I had a question regarding, the enforce not enforcement, but are we catching anybody? And are we able to determine what level of criminal organization they're at? Are they, like, local levels? Or are they are international levels? Who are they?

Yes, sir. So both. We're we and depends on where it's at. And some of the the broader cities, it's local folks. And some of the desert areas, it's a it's an international group.

Okay. Just given some of the efforts that we are hearing about here in this committee, we may have to work with some of our other members to ensure that our efforts to rein this in isn't hampered by efforts to undo databases and things like that. Because otherwise, we're not gonna be able to solve these problems either. And they do cross lines.

They do cross international lines, state lines, and we have to have that type of cooperation, in order to to to unravel these and and then deal with them ultimately.

So thank you very much for the bill and, I certainly intend to support it.

Thank you, sir.

Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Strongly support it. Just to clarify, the amendments added data collection requirement to the task force objectives and annual reports. So, when we get this annual report to get some specific data on, what is actually happening, to inform, law enforcement strategies and coordination, which is extremely important. I I proudly represent the city of Oakland.

The Port Of Oakland is one of the largest container ports in The United States. And just this past Friday, I was out, at the refrigerated cargo business in Oakland where they see a great deal of freight traffic that happens on rail and by truck. And this is a major issue that impacts our ports throughout the state of California, whether it's agriculture, which is one of our major commodities in our state, whether it's imports or exports.

This is really about protecting our state's economy, and addressing, you know, not just local, but international criminal enterprises that are, you know, engaging these these coordinated operations. Right?

It's not a one off thing. This this is this is an actual organized criminal activity. So I thank you very much for bringing this forward. I don't think this is duplicative. I think this adds value critical to our state's economy.

With that, I'll turn over to Cliffs.

I wanna thank the chair. California is a diverse state, whether it's on our beautiful coastlines, our ports in the Central Valley where we produce food and energy, our high desert areas or the Long Beach area and the beach area and the ports in the economy that's there.

This is a very rare bill that affects our state entirely statewide, not only because the impacts of cargo theft in each one of our areas and the impacts that it has, but the the harm it potentially causes to our employees that are running the rail operations. When a rancher brought me the information, I had a meeting with BNSF Railway, and we had a a a lengthy discussion. And I they were completely aware.

They had been documenting this stuff. They had been making sure that they could do everything possible. And some of the things that I got from people on the ground was just horrific. It's like a a war zone in some cases in the Central Valley, and that is not an exaggeration.

I would be glad to share videos with you to show you exactly what some of these employees that are engineers and people that are on these trains have to deal with when they go through that slow area I described earlier.

So with my deepest respect for the chair and accepting the amendments, and I do think we need to make sure it continues to be tracked, I do agree with you. It is not duplicative. The CHP has a wonderful program. It doesn't focus on this particular type of cargo theft, and I just appreciate your aye vote. Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much. Okay. We're into the motion when we establish a quorum. Thank you, chief, for being here. Appreciate your service.

All right. Yeah. We're going to go ahead and recess until we get, more presenters and then we'll be, finishing the the committee hearing afterwards.

And so I'll obtain a motion first on the consent calendar. So moved. Consists of SB 1018 Grove, SB 1190 Grove, and SB 1427, the committee omnibus bill. Moved by Vice Chair Ciarato. If you could please call the roll. Aye. Aragin, aye. Searto. Aye. Syarto. Aye. Caballero. Aye. Ciarto. Aye. Cortesi. Aye. Cortesi, aye. Perez, aye. Court's consent. Consent. Aye. Weiner, aye. Okay. Consent calendar is approved. Let's start from the top. First on file item one, SB 1446 by the, Public Safety Committee, the Elder Parole Bill. S B 1446. The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye. Sayardo? On that one? Oh. Fourteen forty six. Oh, that one? I'm sorry. Okay. Sorry. Let's, let's take a step back. SB 1446, the committee bill needs a motion. Moved by Senator Cortese. Okay. Now we can proceed the roll call. Sorry. Motion was do passed as amended to appropriations. Adeghein? Aye. Searto? Aye. Searto, aye. Caballero? Aye.

Without objection, motion granted. It's seen no other business before the committee. We are now adjourned.