June 16, 2026 · Emerg Mgt · 6,929 words · 18 speakers · 51 segments
Thank you. All right. Senate Emergency Management Committee will come to order. We're going to get started as a subcommittee here. So we have one author with us today. So we're going to allow you to present, Mr. Assemblymember. And then when we get a quorum here, we'll take motions, votes, all that good stuff. So welcome. I think you have one measure on consent before us and one for presentation. I believe AB 1934 is for presentation.
So welcome at your convenience. Thank you very much, Chair Stern, and the cast of thousands of members here today. California's wildfires' destruction has reached a tipping point. We all know that wildfires are sweeping across the state, and we've had certainly the devastation. Three whole communities have burned down in the last eight years. We've never used to have whole communities burned down. In many of the communities, it's ember showers that are causing the biggest problem, and the biggest risk to your house burning down is if the house next to you burns down. And the science is really clear. You can dramatically improve the chances of a house surviving if that house has engaged in home-hardening, scientifically proven home-hardening techniques. It needs to be comprehensive, it needs to be holistic, and it needs to, as much as possible, be neighborhood and community oriented and not just single homes. So AB 1934 directs the Wildfire Mitigation Advisory Committee under the state fire marshal to establish a voluntary home hardening certification program, identifies the hardening measures, including defensible space, that will let you get the certificate. The value of the certificate is then we, as state legislators, would then be able to build a whole series of incentives around that certificate because we would have confidence we would be providing incentives to people that truly have hardened their homes properly. And that is why I think the bill has received bipartisan support as it has moved forward. But it will be a giant marketing campaign, a multi-year, many-year marketing campaign. But this is the first fundamental step. Have the right voluntary certification program. Then we can build all kinds of incentives, and all of us can get creative about those incentives. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Do you have any witnesses, lead witnesses in support?
No, I don't have any witnesses.
Just general witnesses in support, welcome to come forward at this time. General witnesses in support, welcome.
Thank you, Chair and members. Ashley Walker with Nossaman on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey in support.
Thank you.
Sharon Gonzalez on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks in support. Thank you.
Thanks.
Hi, good afternoon. Olivia Herrera, intern at Stone Advocacy on behalf of Elevate in support. Thank you.
Thank you.
Saulo Abadio with the Nature Conservancy in support. Thank you.
Thanks.
Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, League of California Cities, and Rural County Representatives of California in support. Thank you.
Thank you.
Chloe King with Political Solutions on behalf of Matador Fire in support.
Thank you. Thanks.
Martin Radosevich on behalf of Megafire Action in support.
Thanks.
Jeff Neal representing the Orange County Fire Authority and the Board of Supervisors of
Contra Costa County also in support. Thank you very much. All right, seeing no others in support, do we have any in opposition to this bill here before us today? You're welcome to come forward at this time. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Comment? Question? You may. Mr. Vice Chair? So anyway, thank you for your bill. I think it's very good for us to continue the work of making these kind of efforts more fruitful for people and also kind of give them the framework for what that looks like. If you go to tell somebody home hardening in one area versus home hardening in another, you come up with different answers. And this will help guide people in their efforts to try to make their homes not susceptible during fires. So I think this is a good step. There's a lot of other steps that will wind up being taken. and just because you have this certification doesn't mean it's good forever. So I was kind of curious, is there like a renewal type of thing? How long would the certificate be good for until you need like a re-inspection or what is that?
I certainly have my own personal thoughts about that, but we didn't put that specificity into the bill because we want our experts, we want it to be science-based, And so we want the state fire marshal with the advisory committee's input to be able to identify how long, but we will be making sure that we identify those questions that need to be answered. When do you need to recertify? What are the conditions under which that happens? How do you do it? How do we charge for it? They're in charge of coming up with all of that rather than us trying to lay all of that out on a bill.
Yeah, because, you know, using the local fire agencies, most of them, you know, Ventura County, L.A. County, all of them, have brush inspection programs for all homes that are in areas that are like this. And that communication with them, knowing that this is a home certified thing, they can either do it during their annual inspections that come usually around June. Depends upon how wet the year was. But, yeah, that would be something that they can work with, you know, and like you said, they'll work on that. But for now, a good bill, and we'll probably get it through here when we get some people here. Okay.
And if I could, just to follow up on that, for example, we've already passed a resolution on the Assembly side, and we hope it happens on the Senate side, that we identified the second week in September as Home Hardening Week. And then you'll have all these fire-safe councils, and everybody in the state will be out there, and that would be a great time for us to sort of try to do an assessment. How many homes are certified now? How many next year? How many homes got certified? You could really have sort of a whole awareness week going on in the state of California at the same time, And that might be when you have more of these inspections take place.
Would it be better to have it in late June, July, because that's actually when we start having – we usually have the first wave of big fires up here and actually down south in June. And then by September, the whole state's rolling. And so having the week while we've got flames all over the place might be tough.
I'll tell you, one of the minor issues, you know, when is the right time, you know, the real and the intense time is in the fall, you know, getting ready for that October. When the Santa Ana winds. When the rains have stopped. Number one. And number two, some legislators said, I want to be back in my district during that time. And we're not back in our districts in June. We are back in our districts usually in September. We've already had the fires pop off in the last three days down south.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.
Definitely supportive of this measure today as I'm already on the bill, but I will say I think this certification is just one piece of the puzzle, and I really appreciate the coalition that's here today. I think we, between federal and state dollars that are on the line right now, my only concern about this is we sort of get this certification program slowly built and meanwhile appropriate a bunch of dollars, and they all start moving out the door the old way. and whether it's about a billion dollars of veg management that we're about to push out the door from Prop 4 and from GGRF this year under an old model that really doesn't look at, say, public safety risk or home risk and instead looks at acreage as a goal or a forest management goal. I'm really concerned about that. We also just got an update about the status of our federal funds, the BRIC dollars, that do a lot of the hardening and pre-assure mitigation. This committee has heard a measure from Senator Richardson in the last cycle, and this was really about trying to make sure that federal dollars aren't sort of just concentrated amongst a couple communities that are shared more broadly, and that if you're not doing these giant jobs home by home, but in fact if you're scaling and, say, doing, you know, getting more for less out of these either state or federal dollars, I think we're going to get to go a lot further. For instance, hardening 1,000 homes might sound like a good goal, but it actually will do nothing to prevent fires unless it's concentrated. We know that just those kind of metrics won't really get you there. They may feel satisfying, but that we're going to need something more than that. I'm hoping we get this bill done, but also in your capacity as a subcommittee chair over in the Assembly that you apply your rigorous thinking that you have now slowly got all of us bought into here. I hope we can apply this in this budget cycle as the year goes on.
So I really hope so, too. Really good point, and I really appreciate you pointing that out. You know, we tried this bill last year, and the governor vetoed it, even though it passed with bipartisan support. That slowed us down by a year here on the voluntary certification program. And then it would have been easier for us this year to focus more on the other resources to support the incentive program. But we do have to have a rethinking of how we're spending our fire prevention dollars because we need to make sure we have sufficient resources to incentivize this because it is the single most effective thing that can be done. And I will give some credit to the administration. I think they just came out with an update to their action plan for the Wildfire Resilience and Forest Management Task Force that did have some risk metrics in there. It seems like the state fire marshal is actually making some progress in that regard and to really measure outcomes so we don't just burn fire money on projects that feel good but don't get a lot of outcomes. So we're going to be following up on that sneak preview to all the coalition here. We're going to be introducing legislation shortly into a bill we've got in the Assembly that will look at sort of trying to embed some of those risk metrics in dollars that go out the door for veg management, for example. So I look forward to working with you, but also everyone here. And we still don't have a quorum yet. Do you have a comment before we lose Mr. Assemblymember? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Assemblymember Bennett, for bringing the bill forward, only because I have the deepest respect for the fire marshal, the state fire marshal. Now, he's not opposing this, which I know he can't really, but you haven't had conversations with him that is not something that you do. Extensive conversations. Last year we worked closely with him, and again this year. So, yeah, I feel very confident. What's that? What's his thoughts about the bill? Oh, I feel very confident in saying he feels very positive about this bill. That's what I wanted to know on public record. Thank you. You're welcome. I would point out as you're talking about, you know, a thousand homes won move the needle very much at all Another bill coming in front of the Senate will be the home survey and we have allocated some funds in the budget for the Cal Fire and State Fire Marshals to do a survey so we have an idea of what's our starting spot, what percentage of the homes in the high fire risk areas are already hardened, how much further do we have to go, and that will be really valuable for us also. Well, thank you. Hopefully our firefighting strategy won't be about people like you bravely having to cut hose during the middle of a catastrophe, but we can get ahead of all this. So at the proper time, I'll be supporting the bill and appreciate your presentation. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. We'll look for other available members to present. Yeah. If you see any Assembly members, please bring them in. And now we'll take open mic. So if anyone just has a thought on their mind, you can stand up and just tell us how you feel. Just kidding. All right, we'll take a pause. Thank you. Thank you. We are going to resume. And we have an author. Assemblymember Kenner, welcome. Everyone's very excited to see you. We are a subcommittee, so we're not going to do motions or votes yet, but you can present. We can hear testimony at the appropriate time. Sounds like you're going to get a motion. Welcome. So when you get your legs under you, you're welcome to begin.
Mr. Chair and members, I would like to begin by accepting the amendments noted in committee's analysis and thank the chair and staff for their work on this measure. Mr. Chair and members, AB 2411 creates a process to train out-of-state law enforcement officials to provide temporary supplemental public safety during the 2028 Olympics and Paralympic Games. It's going to be an exciting time. According to the City of Los Angeles, the LA28 host city, the games will require an estimate of 30,000 additional sworn law enforcement officers to keep athletes, fans, and visitors from around the world safe. Yet current estimates have identified only 6,000 in-state officers that could be available to provide necessary mutual aid. To be clear, AB 2411 does not replace available in-state law enforcement officials for use during the 2028 games. The bill clearly states that any out-of-state officers used during the games will only augment available in-state officers. I appreciate the productive conversations I've had directly with our law enforcement labor partners and will continue to work with them to ensure that any out-of-state officers used in 2028 will meet California's highest standard of conduct and accountability. Pending approval of the bill today will be taking additional amendments in the Senate Public Safety Committee to incorporate suggestions from the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training on best practices and accountability for any out-of-state officers serving during the games. Senators, we have a choice on how to keep athletes, fans, and visitors safe during the 2028 games. We can use the next two years to establish process for the LA28, Cal OES, and the Commission on Peace Officer Standards in training to plan, coordinate, deploy, training for supplemental out-of-state officers to enforce California state laws. or we could do nothing and leave it up to this federal government to bring in security and officers. As chair of the Assembly Select Committee on the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games, I would prefer that we plan, train, and require any out-of-state law enforcement officers to serve under a state-run central command and comply with all state laws for conduct and accountability. Senators, a safe game is central to a successful games. And AB 2411 will give us a tool necessary to keep us all safe while we celebrate the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games. I am so excited, if you can tell, about the Olympics. And we know that it's wonderful for California, it's wonderful for Los Angeles, and it's wonderful for the United States. But we must keep everyone safe, and I think this is how we do it. Today, I'd like to bring up my witnesses, Andrew Antwi from the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Darrell Lucian from Los Angeles Police Protective League.
Mr. Chair and members, I thank you for the opportunity to be present today. My name is Andrew Antwi on behalf of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. Mayor's office is pleased to serve as sponsor for AB 2411, and we thank the author for the measure. The bill is about preparation, coordination, and public safety. In 2028, L.A. will become home for roughly four weeks for both the Olympic and Paralympic Games. That moment will bring extraordinary opportunity for the city, the region, and the state. It will also bring extraordinary operational demands, including dense crowds, high-profile venues, transit corridors, fan zones, and surrounding neighborhoods that must remain safe and accessible throughout the games. AB 2411 gives California a responsible framework to meet that challenge before it arrives. Local agencies cannot absorb the scale of visitors and the public safety demands through ordinary staffing alone. The bill allows the command to coordinate with qualified public safety personnel from California and other states with important safeguards. While preserving the oversight and structure necessary for accountability. Importantly, the bill does not lower California standards. Out-of-state personnel would be required to complete a streamlined training process through POST. so they understand the requirements in the state and our expectations. And I'm sure the committee is prepared to reinforce this, and we hope with that for this major international event, the committee will look upon this bill favorably and help us get started as early as we can to get this done correctly. With that, I think the author and the committee request an aye vote.
Thank you very much, Mr. Antwi. Others in support, do you have another lead witness, Mr. Lucian? All right. Welcome, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senators, Daryl Lucian representing the Los Angeles Police Protective League, LAPD's police union. First and foremost, I want to thank Mayor Bass for her leadership on this issue, as well as the esteemed and venerable Assemblymember McKenna. We're down to roughly around 8,500 officers now in Los Angeles. We should be well over 10,000. Even with our members, and we anticipate our members will want to work their share of overtime, we recognize that we're going to come nowhere even close to being able to supply the manpower to create enough of a sizable dent in terms of what's needed. I've personally talked with a couple of law enforcement leaders across the state in management at different departments. And it's clear that the process has begun to survey how many officers different suburban and rural departments can potentially offer to send down to Los Angeles. And it's nowhere meeting the need. And so we need the personnel. We need to keep folks safe. And so as a union ourselves, we're strongly supportive of this measure.
Okay. Thank you very much. We'll look to other witnesses in support. General witnesses in support. Now is a good time to come up. State your name, affiliation, position on the bill.
Chloe King with Political Solutions on behalf of two clients, the California Travel Association and the California Orthotic and Prosthetic Association in support. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Others? Seeing none, we'll turn to opposition. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Please. Welcome. Either. Yeah, you can take a seat right here. Welcome. Welcome. Thank you. That'll work, thanks. Got a little bit of a speech here. Good morning, actually good afternoon, Chairman Stern and committee members.
My name is Brian Marvell, I'm President of Porak. We represent about 87,000 public safety members in the state of California. I here today to let you know that we are opposed to the bill currently the way it is AB 2411 unless it amended But I also want to recognize the effort that the Assemblymember has put out and reached out to us We're currently working as hard as we can with all the stakeholders. We do recognize the importance of ensuring a seamless cooperation between California agencies and partners from across the country. That's why we're actively engaged with the bill's author, LAPD, CalOES, and POST. Our goal is to collaborate and refine this measure so it truly serves the public interest and upholds the highest standards of our profession. California peace officers have earned a reputation as among the best trained and most professional in the United States. Over decades of dedicated effort, through rigorous post standards, continuous improvement, and a commitment to accountability, we have built a system that reflects the very best of public service. The Olympics must showcase this excellence. Every officer working these games, whether from within our state or beyond, should reflect the professionalism, training, and integrity that Californians expect and deserve. We think AB 2411 can be made even stronger even with the current staffing issues most departments are facing in California. We're confident that these events can be professionally served with California peace officers. Before looking beyond our borders, we must ensure that California first exhausts every reasonable effort to mobilize and support the exceptional talent within our own ranks. This due diligence honors the men and women who have built our profession's reputation and guarantees that the 2028 games reflect the very best of California's law enforcement and values. With that said, out-of-state personnel are needed and we want to make sure they receive appropriate California postal line training and operate under our laws, protecting both the public and the officers themselves. The 2028 games represent far more than a global event. They are an opportunity to demonstrate what California law enforcement stands for, duty, preparedness, and an unwavering commitment to public safety. By working together to perfect this legislation, we honor the hard work of generations of officers who have elevated our profession. We ensure that Los Angeles welcomes the world not only with celebration, but with a quiet confidence that comes with absolute best in public safety. Together, we will deliver an Olympics that is safe, secure, and worthy of California's proud legacy.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Marlowe. We'll look to other witnesses in opposition. We've got one more. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members.
Matthew Seiberling on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. Apologize for a late opposition letter we submitted. We're encouraged by the commitments to take the language that the author described. I think it's getting closer to a better product. But as the bill is in print now, we do remain opposed, and it's very critical we get this right. If our officers are going to be working alongside officers from other states, we want to make sure that they meet California's standard and keep everyone safe.
Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any others in opposition? Seeing none. We are going to bring it back to the dice, but we do have a quorum, so I don't want to miss that moment. Let's establish one if you guys are up for it. Let's call the roll. Senator Stern. Here. Stern. Here. Sarato. Here. Sarato here. Allen. Blakespeare. Grayson. Here. Grayson here. Grove. Here. Grove here. McNerney. Here. McNerney here. Perez. Rubio. Okay. Thank you so much. Let's bring it back to the dais. Comments, questions, members. Senator Grove. and then we'll come to the vice chair.
Deference. Right to the vice chair and then I'm back. Thank you. So, okay, I'm going to support your bill today. I have grave concerns about this whole issue. One of them is, you know, we've had some issues with recruitment and retention in California and we've done a lot of laws that have made it really difficult. for enforcement agencies to even recruit and retain employees. And we already heard, you know, just LAFD, who is the primary agency responsible for these games, are going to be severely undermanned. So there has to be an effort to get these agencies brought up to speed if we can, and I don't know that we can. The plan to have outside agencies is not something that is unfamiliar with emergency service work. When we can't handle what we're doing locally, we go to the county and we can't handle on a county level, we go to the state. And if we can't handle on a state, we go to the national. And that means the western hemisphere comes and helps. The western U.S. comes and helps. The problem is if you're going to train all these people, you have to get them to want to be trained. I don't know that you're going to have, I think you're going to have a recruitment problem in that. So I'm glad to see that you're going to start now so that we can recognize that this is probably going to be an issue. The other thing that I'm very concerned about is the tremendous cost. So just taking our state agencies alone, for them to come in and work overtime while they're still, because these are all going to be overtime personnel that are working. And when we're using our personnel, that means they're coming in on their off shifts while other personnel are covering their regular shifts. And so almost every lick of personnel that we're using is going to be time and a half. It gets a little different when it goes out of state because the ones that are getting time and a half here have a home to go to. That's why you see the travel agency here. They're pretty excited about this. What happens when we get them from out of state is the minute they leave their home to when they come here, and for as long as they stay here, if they come in and they're here for two weeks, they get paid 24-7, time and a half, for two weeks. They get per diem for all of the other stuff. You're talking about millions and millions or hundreds of millions of dollars in costs just for personnel alone with this approach. But I don't know another approach. So I am excited for you. I am excited for Inglewood to be able to host some of this. It's been a long time coming for that community to have venues like they have now that can host the Olympics. I'm also really, really worried about them because of this. This is what happens when all of our concerns come to roost. Right now, they are coming to roost because we are severely undermanned to handle something like that. If we are going to cut out or attempt to cut out the federal government, that is a huge mistake. I know, but what you were saying was you want to use them as little as possible. They are our partners. Okay. Okay. They are our partners in this. They have to be. They have the knowledge. They have the training. We have systems in place. What we don't have is personnel, and what we're banking on is that other personnel from out of state will find this so lucrative that they're willing to get trained beyond the training that they have to come here and get trained again to go do this. That's going to be a trick. So anyway, those are the concerns I have. Like I said, I'm going to support it because I want something to happen. Something has to happen to make this work. But the concerns outlined by the opposition here are well founded and then some. And so with that, Mr. Chair, you can.
Appreciate it. Senator Grove.
Thank you. With all due respect to my esteemed vice chair of this committee, he's a longtime fire chief. That was the issue with the LAFD instead of the LAPD. He just couldn't bring himself to say PD. I know it's habit, right? It's okay. Just thought I'd make sure that our law enforcement excellence that we have in the room is not offended by your fire department comment. Anyways, so just forgive him a little bit because he's been a fire department chief for ever and a day. You asked me to substitute on this committee. Don't even go there. I agree a portion of what my colleague is saying about the recruitment standards. Policy in the state has caused our recruitment ability for our law enforcement, and we have excellence in law enforcement. But policies, you know, when I was growing up, and I think we were growing up, everybody wanted to be a police officer and a teacher. And now very few people want to pursue that career because of, in fact, just the demonization of our excellence in law enforcement, which is very heart-wrenching. I do think that because it is the Olympics and because we have the opportunity to show American excellence and host the most amazing athletes in the entire world that are coming to Los Angeles and into California, I think there are people that want to come from out of state and they want to make sure that, man, I was able to do that. I can tell my grandkids I stood right there on that stadium. So I think there's a sense of honor that will play into the recruitment factor. But I agree with the opposition completely that they better be post-certified. They better augment and not take the place of any officer that is duly sworn in this state that's been here, lives here, loves this state, protects this state and its community. And for somebody to come, no offense against Arizona, Colorado, Texas, somebody show up here, get double the amount of money, 24 hours pay, seven days a week or whatever it is on overtime, and stand next to somebody that's not qualified. Like, those people are not the same qualifications that we have. And I never even thought about it when I read the analysis, and I apologize to you, the jeopardy that it might put you or one of your officers in the situation for somebody who's not qualified to handle something that we are qualified to handle here. So I apologize for not having that up front. I'm still supporting the bill, but I would just ask for a commitment from the author who is honorable and wants to make sure that her city in L.A. is protected just as much as anybody. And we need to have a preparation plan. I want to make sure that you take that into consideration. Just like we wouldn't want, again, I could use another example, but it'd probably freak everybody out. So just we have outstanding law enforcement officers. The people coming in need to have the same excellence that we have here in our state, or they shouldn't be standing shoulder to shoulder with us on a line to protect people. So that's just my comment. And like I said, I'll still hold true to move the bill. And I was under the same impression that my colleague was that you did not want the federal government involved in this.
I didn't mean it that way. I'm going to straighten that out. Okay. So it means either or, right? No, no, no. Because if something goes down. Let me know. The federal government can say hands off, but I'm telling you, we need FBI. If something goes down, we need to have all hands on decked. I don't care who they are, right? So, okay, just making sure that you clarify that comment. So it wasn't in the language, but based on your comment, I wanted to make sure that was done. But thank you for being here.
Thank you, Senator. We'll turn to Senator Grayson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And your excitement, energy, and passion emanates from you. And I want to commend you for your work, especially on this bill, considering Post and their comments as well as the representatives that we have here from PORAC. Real quick, I believe this bill is being referred to public safety if it was to get out of this committee. In public safety, just want to affirm that you have plans in working with opposition to talk about some language and then take appropriate amendments in the next committee to help mitigate or to help deal with any opposition Absolutely With that I be supporting your bill today I think we do have a motion from Senator Grove
That's correct.
So before we allow you to close, I just want to make a brief comment. I really appreciate you working with us, working with the committee, and the delicate dance that's required to make all this work in a complex political environment. We have some things that maybe transcend all this, and we think these games can do that. And that, yeah, that there's a way to rely on our talent without putting ourselves at a security disadvantage for a larger event than we've probably ever seen in our history. To that point, just direct members' attention to page five. And granted that this may be fleshed out a little bit more before a public safety committee, or you all may work further, but the amendment that the committee, the intent language that at least committee had proposed and authors accepted says it's the intent that California peace officers shall be the primary and preferred source of law enforcement personnel for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games and that the services of out-of-state law enforcement personnel shall be utilized only to augment available California resources. So we hope that gives a good directional sense with the author to keep working forward in good faith and just further allow you to close.
Thank you for all your efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, members. The comment about the federal government, it's not or.
It's just that we get a chance to work together to shape what that looks like if we have to bring in outside officers. If we do nothing, we won't have the opportunity to shape it because the federal government will just take over the whole thing. They will be working with us. They're here now with the FIFA games. They're here in Englewood and in San Jose, FBI, CIA, everybody. Everybody's here because we need to stay safe. We remember the games in Atlanta and things that happened there, and so we don't want that to happen in L.A. Now, our law enforcement partners, I've had a great conversation with them. Thank you guys for coming in and talking with me, and I understand their issue as well. And we're here to do this together so that we can make it a safe California. The cost, Senator, I think we're going to make a lot of revenue and sales tax up when the Olympic comes because we're going to have hundreds and thousands of people here. And so I think that we'll be able to cover that cost. I feel like we do, but I didn't even think about people might not want to come. Thank you, Senator Grohl, for saying, no, they're going to want to come because that scared me. What if they didn't want to come and we're doing all this and no one applies? That would be horrible, but I think they will want to come because the Olympics is so exciting and we haven't had adherence since 84. And with that, I would ask for your aye vote. Okay, thank you so much. We have a motion for Senator Grove. The motion is do pass, sorry, do pass as amended to public safety. So without further ado, please call the roll. Senator Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Sarato? Yeah. Sarato, aye. Yes. Allen? Flakespeare? Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Grove, aye. McNerney, aye. Perez, Rubio. That is 5-0. On call. Okay, great. We'll leave that on call for the absent members. Thank you so much, Assemblymember Kinner, everyone else for joining. We'll turn back to the Bennett bill, file item number 2, maybe 1934. I believe we had an offer of a motion from the vice chair on this one. So motion from Senator Ciarato. Please call the roll. Sorry, the motion is do pass to natural resources. Senators Stern. Aye. Stern, aye. Ciarato. Aye. Ciarato, aye. Allen, Blake Spear, Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Grove. Aye. Grove, aye. McNerney. McNerney, aye. Perez, Rubio. That's five to zero. That bill's on call. Okay, we'll leave it on call for the absent members, and then we're going to go, that sounded like a motion for the consent calendar. That was. Oh, indeed. Okay, so let's just review real briefly, members. We have AB 1873, AB 2341, AB 2471, and AJR 27 as our proposed consent items. Barring any objection, we'll call the roll with Senator Sayartha's motion. Senator Stern. Right. Stern, aye. Sarato. Aye. Sarato, aye. Allen. Blake Spear. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Grove. Grove, aye. McNerney? McNerney, aye. That's five to zero. That bill is on call. Okay. We'll leave it on call for the absent members and take a pause. Recess. Take a recess. We'll take a brief recess. Thank you. We're going to reconvene the committee and we will lift the calls for one of the absent members here. He's quite present. We're going to start with the consent calendar. The current vote is? Five to zero. Let you review your items, but this is for proposed consent. Please call the absent members. All right. For the file item, it's going to be file item one, three, five, and six on consent. Senator, the Senator is Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. That's six to zero. Okay. We'll leave that on call for the absent members. Now we're going to turn to file item number two, AB 1934. For Bennett, the motion is due passed to Senate Natural Resources and Water. Please call the absent members. The current vote is 5-0. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Blakespear, Perez, Rubio. That's 6-0. Okay, we'll leave that on call for the absent members. And lastly for you, sir, AB 2411, Assemblymember Kinner. The motion is due passed as amended to Senate Public Safety. Please call the absent members. All right. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Blakespear, Perez, Rubio. That's 6-0. That was on call. We will leave that on call as well. Thank you. We're going to take a brief recess. All right. We're going to reconvene Senate Emergency Management Committee, and we are going to lift calls on the outstanding measures here. First off, we're going to do proposed consent. File items 1, 3, 5, and 6. Current vote is 7. 6-0. 6-0. Please call the absent members. Senators Blakespeare, Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Rubio, that's 7-0. Okay, we'll leave that on call. Turning now to file item number two, AB 1934, Bennett. Motion is due passed as natural resources in water. Please call the absent members. Senators Blake Spear, Perez, Rubio. Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Okay. 7-0. We'll leave that on call. And then lastly, file item number four, AB 2411, McKinner. The motion is due passed as amended to public safety. Please call the absent members. Senators Blake Spear, Perez. Aye. Perez, aye. Rubio. That's 7-0. Okay, we'll leave that on call. And pause? No. Another recess. Okay, we'll take another recess. We're going to reconvene committee in 30 seconds. All right, that was a quick 30. We're back. Welcome. We're going to lift calls for the absent members. Start with a consent calendar if you're okay with that. File items one, three, five, and six. The current vote is 7-0. Please call the absent members. Senators Blake-Spear, Rubio. Aye. Rubio, aye. That's A to 0. Okay, 8 to 0. We'll leave that on call. File item number 2, AB 1934, Bennett. Motion is due passed to natural resources and water. Please call the absent members. Senators Blake-Spear, Rubio. Aye. That's A to 0. Okay, 8 to 0. We'll leave that on call. And lastly, AB 2411, McKinner. Do pass as amended to public safety. Please call the absent members. Senators Blakespeare, Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. That's A to zero. Okay. We will leave that on call and take a pause, a recess, a recess, brief recess. We're going to reconvene in 30 seconds. All right, wrinkle in time. 30 seconds is now. We are going to lift the calls for the absent members. We have one left. We're going to start with the consent items. if that's all right. It's items 1, 3, 5, and 6. The current vote is 8-0. Please call the absent member. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Okay. Bill's out. 9-0. File item number 2, AB 1934, Bennett. The motion is due passed and sent a natural resource in water. Please call the absent member. Senators Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Okay. 9-0. Bill's out. File item Number four, AB 2411, Senator McKinner, which is due pass as amended to public safety. Please call the absent member. Senator Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. That's nine to zero. Okay, nine to zero. That makes it through our calendar. This meeting is hereby adjourned. Thank you.