S.B. 70 Natural Disaster Amendments: transcript

Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee, Jan 22, 2026

1. Committee chair1:06:17

   Alright, Senator Plumb, come, come right up. Item six on our agenda. Natural disaster Amendments. Uh, there's no sub amendments. Senator, welcome to our committee. Thank you. Sorry, that Didn't have to find a seat. That was fortuitous. I know. Take appreciate We're all scrambling. Getting back into the mode here, so That's right. Getting Our Steps in. Much appreciation While you get settled in. Let us just welcome all of you from, uh, the public and, uh, are here and participating in this process. Uh, which, um, I would describe it as, uh, an honor to serve and it's a sacred process that we are, are part of. So thank all of you for being here. Senator Plumb times yours for Senator Bill

2. Sen. Jen Plumb1:07:01

   70. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, also to the folks here with us. Yeah, this bill has been, um, really an interesting learning adventure for me. And I think we've, we've gotten it to a, a really good place. Uh, the impetus for this bill actually came out of an odd spot where it was when Hurricane Helene was coming through, and I was at a conference listening to the news, and I heard Governor DeSantis of Florida talking to individuals in his community about going to seek safety, going to a shelter, respite, not putting yourself in harm's way. And he said, and I'm like brushing my teeth and doing the things. And I heard him say, those of you who have pets and you're worried about leaving them, you don't have to worry. Every county has a space where you can go with them. And that resonated to me as someone who, you know, is, has, has some love for animals and, and does rescue animals in my own life. And I tried to picture myself in that scenario and thought, you know, I would be the one who would stay home because I had all those animals. And not only put myself in harm, but potentially put the first responders who may have to come later and, and help me, um, in what harm's way. So it got me. And, you know, that was almost two years ago, got me thinking about it, talked with some of the folks in the spaces, talked with some of the folks I know in first responder spaces and EMS spaces and, um, emergency management planning. I, I do work in the emergency department. And so we look at emergency planning every day when I'm on shift. We are planning for some potential emergency. And, and I talked too with some folks who said, well, you know, the federal government has been encouraging this since 2005, 2006 when there was an act that was passed coming out of lessons learned in Katrina that said, here's some things we could do better, both to offer our, our community members and our citizens a safer pathway. And again, to protect our first responders as well. So we started looking at ways that we could add this in without being heavy handed. There, there was no desire to be like, you know, whip cracking and saying, you must, and we we're gonna be very prescriptive. We acknowledged that there's gonna be a lot of uniqueness. You know, what it looks like on the Wasatch front is not gonna be what it looks like over in the basin or what it's gonna be looking like in southern Utah or the middle of the state. And so what we essentially came to the point of was saying, we would like there to be a plan put in place in your disaster planning that just accounts for this piece. We're allowing those entities in those spaces to even venture out. So say that you're in Rich County and you wanna partner with Wayne County, and that's where it's going to be. Those local entities get to decide what works for them. We're not going to tell them, we're not gonna put rules, we're not gonna put expectations. We just want there to be a plan in place as far as what the rules, regulations, requirements are. They can set that. I mean, I, I was joking with someone, I hope everybody's plan doesn't say plums gonna arrive with a U-Haul and take care of all the animals, but literally their plan can be what they determine it to be. We really want it to be not heavy handed with this. We've worked, uh, trying to, you know, talk to as many stakeholders as possible, have engaged with, uh, emergency management types since last summer, have had multiple phone calls and, you know, not always agreed, but tried to get to places where we were understanding each other and we did remove language that made it feel too prescriptive, uh, in places. The Red Cross has had a a bit of a pivot, and I think they're here to speak, uh, to the bill as well. In their view of this, they now understand that there are humans amongst us, that this is a big piece of what it means to keep them in a safe, in a sheltered situation. Uh, I've talked to the UAC, the, uh, association of Counties. They're no problems with the bill either. So I'm really hopeful that the work that we've done, um, will come through in that this is just about forethought planning instead of afterthought. Gosh, we wish we would've. Um, there is a bit in this law, in this bill as well, there was a, a case, a specific case that came out of Helene, where, where there was a, a dog that had been tied to a fence, and as the waters rose, he, he got up real underneath and a police officer did rescue him, ultimately ended up adopting him as well. And so in this bill is, is the piece added? Hey, we understand when disasters strike, everybody goes, um, at least give the animals a chance to go to, don't tie the dog to a tree or to a whatever else. You know, sometimes turning the folks loose and turning the critters loose is what happens. And so this was added as well to acknowledge the importance of, of not taking away the possibility for survival. Um, I, I suppose before I welcome any others who want to come speak, I, I would like to say that for me, coming up now on two and a half decades working in an er, we have, we run through drills and we have plans on what happens if someone comes in with a real toxic exposure, all the stuff on 'em that nobody wants to get hurt, taking care of them. None of the nurses or the any other, I have never once in my career seen someone that's come in drenched in a toxic material. But I'm really glad that we have a plan in place because if it ever does happen, we'll pull that binder. We'll make sure that everyone taking care of them, their family members that are with them. And that's what a plan means, is that you've just considered the possibilities and said what you would do. I don't want any new shelters built. I don't want any new people hired it. It's just, let's, let's have a plan in place. So with that, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

3. Committee chair1:12:17

   Okay. Thank you, Senator. Appreciate your, your work on this. And, uh, we'll bring it then to the committee if, see if there's any clarifying questions.

4. Committee chair1:12:27speaker not certain

   I have one, uh, myself. Yeah. Uh, a lot of people have, um, animals maybe on a a, a dog outside that's on a leash or chain, I guess, and the, to their doghouse or, and they're con they're confined either by the chain or within the fence and natural disaster. Everybody leaves and unfortunately Fido is left. Is that a aggravated, um,

5. Sen. Jen Plumb1:12:54

   You know, that's a good question. Say the person wasn't home to have a chance to release the leash or even sort of a deal. Yeah, yeah. That's what I'm asking. You know, that's an interesting consideration. I, um, that deserves, yeah, that deserves the ponder. I, I think, and, and I can work with the drafters to make sure there's clear language on that, on what, uh, intentional would be. Knowingly. Intentionally, Yeah. Knowingly intentional. Make sure that we're clear on that language because there would be a difference between that and someone who tied to a fence posted. You know what I mean? That Yeah, yeah. There would be a difference in that. So yeah, I, I would, I will absolutely make sure that's clear For sure. Okay. Yeah.

6. Committee chair1:13:28

   Thank you Senator. You bet. Maybe, uh, any other clarifying questions? Alright, I'll then go to the public for anyone please come up. I see one hand. Anybody else that would like to speak to this? Oh, good. Okay. We'll just come up in order here and, uh, you will sign the role, but do that after you speak, um, sign the role and leave your name for, uh, we need that, uh, when you, when you sit, announce who you, your name, and if you represent an organization, let us know who that is. Thank you. Go ahead.

7. Kristina Pulsipher, Ruff Haven Crisis Sheltering1:14:00

   Okay. Thank you. Oh, is it on? Oh, it's on. Yeah, it's on. It's on. Okay, great. Just bring it close. Alright. Um, good afternoon committee. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak and thank you to Senator Plumb for her tireless efforts on this bill. Uh, my name is Christina Pulsifer. I am the co-executive director of Rough Haven Crisis Sheltering, and I work in crisis response supporting families and their pets during disasters and emergencies. I'm here in support of SB 70. It does not require that every shelter have to house pets in the same space as people. It requires that emergency plans identify at least one option that can accommodate pets in their household pets, um, excuse people in their household pets, allowing jurisdictions to plan that in whatever may that makes sense for them. Locally. Um, many concerns raised by emergency managers already have working solutions. The American Red Cross has established guidelines and experience supporting pet co sheltering and co-located sheltering models across the country. In addition, non-profits like ours, animal control agencies and veterinary partners are already collaborating with emergency managers in Utah to provide food supplies and veterinary care during disasters. Um, our organization has responded to apartment fires where pets were displaced, working alongside local partners to provide emergency sheltering medical care and supplies. And these partnerships reduced the burden on emergency management. They don't increase it. And importantly, SB 70 brings Utah into closer alignment with what Senator Plumb was discussing with federal disaster planning, um, standards including the Pets Act, which recognizes pets as part of household evacuation and sheltering states that plan for pets see higher evacuation compliance and reduced risk for residents and first responders. Um, planning for pets just reflects on how people behave in emergencies. Sometimes we hear that, you know, you shouldn't leave your pets behind or, you know, whatnot. People will stay and they will die with their animals that is seen time and time again. And so we want to make sure that we have an option that reduces risk management. Thank you.

8. Committee chair1:16:08

   Thank you. Thank you for coming and sharing your testimony. We're going to go to online now, so you can go ahead and finish that, and then we'll have our next guest trade places. We'll go online to Ian Williams. Ian, if you will, uh, unmute and turn your camera on. We'll give you a couple of minutes. Please, uh, keep it succinct, brief, but we appreciate you go ahead.

9. Ian Williams, Utah Animal Control Officers Association1:16:30

   Absolutely. Thanks. Uh, just jumped on panels. Can you hear me? Perfect. Yes. Perfect. Good. Wonderful. Well, thank you Chair and members of the committee. I appreciate, uh, the opportunity to speak today. Uh, my name is Ian Williams. I am the President of the Utah Animal Control Officers Association. And, uh, the reason I'm on this remotely and not there in, uh, the chamber with you is I'm with about 100, uh, animal control officers and law enforcement officers from across the state at our annual conference and training. And so I've stepped away from that training. I'm in my hotel room here. Great. Uh, to, uh, uh, voice some support on behalf of, uh, our membership for Senate Bill 70. Uh, just briefly would thank, uh, Senator Plumb and, uh, also the participating stakeholders like, uh, Christina, who just spoke, uh, from Rough Haven, uh, for their vision and support in this matter. You see, SB 70 recognizes a simple truth, uh, that emergency managers and animal services see repeatedly. And that's, that many families just will not evacuate if they can't bring their pets with them. And when we don't plan for pets, we put people, responders, and, uh, and those animals at greater risk. I, it, Senator Plumb rightly identified that first responders have to go in and try and convince these individuals, uh, to, to leave. And, uh, we're, we're taking up resources when there is a simple solution. And, uh, and that's what SB 70 provides. Uh, it requires that local emergency operation plan to identify at least one shelter option that can accommodate their evacuees and their household pets. And so, SB 70 improves real world outcomes. It supports safer evacuations, reduces preventable animal suffering, and helps communities respond more efficiently during wildfires, floods, other disasters. And they happen. Uh, we saw, uh, just this last year, a Willard Peak, uh, fire there in North Ogden. Uh, I, I remember Channel four news interviewing a an individual who hadn't, um, uh, wanted to leave his home because, uh, the, uh, he couldn't take his pets with him. And it took some, some effort to get him out. And so, uh, I just, this is a practical, compassionate public safety bill, and it will keep families together and make Utah Emergency response stronger. So I respectfully urge, uh, favorable recommendation of SB 70. Thanks for the time.

10. Committee chair1:18:46

    Thank you, uh, Mr. Williams. And please, uh, give our best to you and your colleagues and the work that you're doing. It looks like you're getting further training, so I appreciate the work in the service you provide this date and your testimony today. Welcome. Thank you, chairman. Welcome you, uh, time is yours. Please announce who you are and if you represent a group.

11. Alexis Pagoulatos, Humane Society of Utah1:19:05

    Hi everyone. My name is Alexis PTIs. I'm the Executive Director of the Humane Society of Utah. Um, and I'm here to support this bill as well. Uh, the perspective I'm here to share today is grounded in public safety, not only sentiment, uh, decades of emergency management data and after action reports show a consistent and well-documented pattern. People delay or refuse evacuation when they cannot bring their pets. That hesitation directly increases risk to human life and places additional strain on first responders, um, including animal control officers who must later conduct rescues in dangerous conditions. Allowing pets and human emergency shelters removes a major barrier to timely evacuation. And when families know their animals will be accommodated, compliance with evacuation orders increase shelter utilization improves, and emergency response becomes more predictable and efficient. This reduces preventable injuries, fatalities, and the need for high risk rescue operations. Pet inclusive sheltering al is also a force multiplier for emergency operations. It limits the number of people attempting to remain in unsafe areas, reduces traffic congestion caused by last minute evacuations, and allows responders to focus on critical life saving tasks rather than avoidable animal related emergencies. From a policy standpoint, accommodating pets is not an added complication. It's a risk reduction strategy. Keeping people and their pets together improves human safety outcomes, strengthens evacuation compliance, and supports a more effective and orderly emergency response. For these reasons, pet inclusive sheltering should be viewed as a practical component of modern emergency preparedness, not an optional accommodation. Thank you.

12. Committee chair1:20:49

    Thank you. Thanks for coming and sharing the, your thoughts. Okay. And no. And there anybody else? Oh, just a couple more, please come up. Looks like we have two more hands and, uh, if there's something's been stated, don't need to repeat it. But we appreciate you coming and, and sharing your testimony with us.

13. Kathryn McMullin, Utah Emergency Management Association1:21:10

    Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Uh, my name is Catherine McMullen. Um, I'm with a Utah Emergency Management Association. I also serve as a county emergency manager and have responded to and built shelters at a federal, um, state and local level. Um, we appreciate the work that Senator Plumb has put into this. Um, we agree with the benefits of co-located animal shelters, um, and considering animal sheltering in your emergency planning. Uh, the concern that we have that we're opposed to this bill is the wording in it that says that the animal will be sheltered with the resident. That means sleeping alongside in the same location. I can assure you that across the state, emergency managers in every jurisdiction have considered where the animals go. They always provide. Um, there's no incidences that there were not animal sheltering capabilities provided. We partner with locals, we partner with, um, nonprofit, we partner with humane societies, animal control, and all types of facilities to make sure that the animals always have a place to go. This bill is concerning because it states that the pet, including turtles and rodents and bunnies and cats and dogs who we love, I love my animals, um, but that they would be housed with the resident inside the shelter. And requiring that we add that to our plan. Um, when you build a plan, it cannot be theoretical. Our county officials, our elected officials, promulgate and vote on plans and assured that whatever's in our emergency operations plan can be carried out. And if it can't, it's negligent to say we can co-locate these pets with their residents. Um, in this situation, it's negligent. If you add that to your plan. If you can't do it, we have some concerns about the abilities to do it. In order to have what we call a co-located shelter, you have to have very specific equipment that not all jurisdictions have available to them. More importantly, you have to have facilities. Oftentimes our emergency shelters for residents consist of schools, churches, rec centers, places that have policies which don't allow those animals in their facilities. So if they have a policy that eliminates that use of that facility, if you have to co-locate, um, a lot of the smaller jurisdictions, uh, even just saying you have to have one designated, they won't have that capability. Another, uh, struggle with this is staffing. And oftentimes we staff our shelters with volunteers, um, and volunteer organizations that are fantastically trained, um, in behavioral and mental health and support our residents. They're not trained in certified animal care. If you have an animal that under this duress and this stressful situation, they're either aggressive or they get sick, or those natures and we have to feed them and make sure that we have the proper equipment so that they are taken care of properly. So there are some, there are some hurdles to get over to get to the point where every jurisdiction can open what we call that co-located, housed with your pet. Um, and to say that we just need to add it to our plan, that we don't need to overcome those hurdles right now asks that we ask our elected officials to promulgate plans that we cannot carry out. We have the capabilities regionally, um, we can partner with other regions. If it is a multi-regional incident, we would for sure have that ability because we have the access to larger facilities where we can separate, especially those with significant allergies to dander, pet dander. You're bringing in those animals to a facility. We need all of our residents to feel safe and comfortable. So with that being said, um, we oppose this bill at this time. We do e encourage working towards creating state resources where there is staff that can come out to support those animals, where there's equipment available, where there are facilities available. But until those resources are available and deployable to us, we're not comfortable adding that. Every jurisdiction can have a co-located, uh, residential shelter with pets, uh, making that required when we don't have those resources available.

14. Committee chair1:25:11

    Okay. Okay. Thank you you for your Time. Yeah, thank you. Appreciate you coming and sharing your, uh, that point of view and, uh, uh, and in all in all of your planning. So working with the counties. Alright, we had one other. This will be our last, uh, public comment. So, welcome sir.

15. Willis LeFevre, Uintah County Resident1:25:29

    Please, uh, state your name and if you represent a group, Willis Lafe you on a basin resident. Um, I, I appreciate what this is trying to do. Um, I, I hear her talk about there was some animals listed such as dogs, cats, bunnies, turtles, those kind of things. Uh, people's petts are very real to them. Uh, there's regulations about what you can and cannot do on public lands. Um, wildfire is probably one of our largest concerns in the state. So residents with horses located, you know, livestock located to relatively close to public lands, is there provisions for them without breaking laws and get in trouble to open the gates? Can I turn my horses out on public lands? How does that, what does that look like? Livestock. So if we're going to, we're gonna address this, you know, they're, they're important to, um, their owners as well. So if we're gonna look at this, we need to, we need to be pretty broad. It will come up.

16. Committee chair1:26:32

    Okay. Thanks sir. Uh, appreciate you coming from the UN basin then being on Capitol Hill today.

17. Committee chair1:26:39

    Alright, that concludes our, oh, we do have one online, one Person raise your hand. David. David, David Ari, we will, um, take your comment. Please turn on your camera and unmute. We'll give you three minutes. There you are. Hello. We can hear you. Go ahead, David. Okay.

18. David Ulibarri, Eagle Mountain City Public Safety1:27:15

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, my name is David Yuleberry and I am emergency manager over at Eagle Mountain City. And I'm currently the Vice President of Utah Emergency Management Association, eima. And I just wanted to, you know, reiterate what Catherine had said at this point. Our, um, stance on this bill is just opposition until we can figure out maybe a state level or regional level resource might be a, a better option than locally. Um, not all local entities can have the funding or the manpower to pull this off. Thank you for your time.

19. Committee chair1:27:48

    Thank you. Okay. That will conclude our public pre uh, uh, comments and we'll bring it then back to the committee for further discussion and or action.

20. Committee chair1:28:01

    Senator Hinkins.

21. Sen. David P. Hinkins1:28:03

    Yeah, thank you. And I appreciate you attempting to look out for the animals and stuff, but I represent a lot of rural communities also on the Navajo reservation. Would that pertain to them because, uh, Navajo Mountain or Monument Valley, I mean, they don't have animal shelters and different things like that. And I'm just, uh, very concerned about it. And so I'm probably gonna be a no on this to be honest with you.

22. Committee chair1:28:26

    Okay. In, Go ahead. You can go

23. Sen. Jen Plumb1:28:28

    On. Yeah, I was gonna say, I think there's likely some, some sovereignty points that come into that, that, that could be had. But this isn't about, uh, involving our animal shelters at all, or dropping animals at our animal shelters or expecting animal control officers or people to do anything more than they're already doing. And in fact, I think it would help lessen the response that they have to do if there's not animals left running wild and instead are taken to a location where their, um, caretakers are. Um, I wanna be really clear, I think that there continues to be a misrepresentation of what this bill is. Um, I, I am telling you there have been multiple phone calls with emergency managers and we have worked the language. I could get sha on the phone. We have worked the language and taken so many suggestions and, and really tried not to be prescriptive and tried to say what works for your community, put it into, um, put it, put it, help us put it into the language for it. Um, this has been actually going on since last spring, so for over a year. And then I did get an email last night from you Eima, that they were opposed to the bill. I asked for any suggested language changes that would help. Um, that's always a little frustrating when you work really hard on a piece of policy and involve stakeholders and multiple phone calls and you have people applauding you, and then there's a, a little bit of a blindside. So I am, I continue to be open to wording suggestions. In fact, I, I believe the amendment that you had asked for about intentionally, I think it's already ready public. We could go ahead and adopt it and add it in. Shad was working on that. Um, the Red Cross, I'm not certain where we've, um, crossed streams, they are the two crosses. They're here today. They're in support of this bill. They have offered to be that partner as well for any of the locality spaces to say, this is what we are doing. If your plan is, we will work with the Red Cross to, to ensure there is an option that can be somebody's plan. There's no rule requirement. I don't think it's honest to say that this requires an enormous increased fiscal investment. Emergency management is about making plans. This does not mean building barns and stables. It does not mean hiring new body. It means if it says in there, we will work with our local animal control authority and reds cross to make sure we have a fence outside of the church where the people are. To me, that's width. For someone to tell me that width means that it has to be sleeping right next to you. I don't feel like that's an accurate representation. So, um, hearing the concerns, I am committed to continue to work on this. I, I, I felt very good about all the support I had. And then, you know how these committees go, right? Yeah. So, um, know that I have an, an openness to improvements if, if this bill is allowed to move forward.

24. Committee chair1:31:16

    Thank you. Further record.

25. Unknown speaker1:31:17speaker not certain

    I would just like to say that, you know, I've been around long enough to know that cats and birds and rodents don't mix very well. A hundred percent. A hundred percent. And if your plan says you can plumb can come in with her pug in a carrier, there's your plan. Like, like that's the plan, right? Plum can come in with, or or her bird in a bird cage, or I don't have a bird. But if I did, um, the plan can be very prescriptive and any rules and requirements are set by the localities. I don't wanna tell, I don't wanna follow what the feds say.

26. Sen. Jen Plumb1:31:46

    Although, so it's known the description of the animals. I didn't pull bunnies and turtles and rode. That was not a me thing. That is based on code. That that's how that's defined. I also do think that this may open up opportunities for us to get additional federal emergency management response dollars. So we've tried to think about all the pictures, can't please all the people all the time, but you still continue to try.

27. Committee chair1:32:08

    Thank you. And we do have another question here from Senator Sandall. No,

28. Sen. Scott D. Sandall1:32:13

    Probably explanation of my vote, but, uh, and I appreciate what you're trying to do here. Uh, but I do side with the fact that anytime we tell a local agency that they shall designate one shelter or anything else, they are gonna have to go build that or prepare for it. And that will cost them money. And I'm gonna hear from that, from my county and my city. In fact, the 13 cities that I have in my county are not going to, uh, be able to comply with this completely. And, uh, that's a problem. My second really big problem is that we criminalize someone's action in a natural disaster, um, with lines 81 and 84. Um, I, I just, I can't get there especially, but, but there's, there's my two parts why I'm gonna be a no.

29. Sen. Scott D. Sandall1:33:02

    Is there a language that we, that would make you feel that we didn't because really they

30. Sen. Jen Plumb1:33:06

    Shouldn't have? Well, I, I don't wanna draft, I don't wanna draft a bill in committee meeting. If we're gonna do a, let's take it offline.

31. Sen. Scott D. Sandall1:33:10

    Let's, first of all, 83, that the, the 80 side, I'm, I'm completely, I can't ever get behind that. Okay. I would never vote for a bill that criminalized someone in a natural disaster for doing whatever, uh, opening them up. That that wouldn't be the case. The other, the other part is you're gonna have to be a lot more prescriptive, quite honestly, Senator. Okay. That there is no expectation that just because you have it in your plan, that, that a county has to do it. Sure. Because this leads me to believe that a county has to do it. There's, there's no other way for me to read this county, or a city has to have that preparation, or they're open to litigation if they don't

32. Sen. Jen Plumb1:33:49

    Feedback received. And I, I hear, I absolutely hear you. The counties were okay with this bill this morning for what that's worth.

33. Committee chair1:33:55

    Thank you, Senator. Further discussion to the bill, the committee members. Yes. Uh, Senator Grover, Are you ready for a motion?

34. Sen. Keith Grover1:34:04

    Uh, almost. I have one. Uh, uh, we did have a member of the public senator who brought up, uh, item 10 on line 10. It accommodate an individual and an individual's household pet. And so that would be housing people as well, right? Or, uh, I mean, I think proximity is the question, right? So maybe there's more clarity needed in that and that's, that's They brought that up as Okay. Yeah, That's, yeah. And I, I hear that there's like a different interpretations of that. Okay. Yeah. Which I means we gotta address it. Fair enough. Which absolutely means we gotta address it.

35. Committee chair1:34:38

    Thank you. Um, that concludes then I'll go, I'll then go to Senator Grover. Yeah, I'm ready for a motion if That motion to uh, holding committee. Okay. Uh, appropriate motion. Uh, do you wanna speak to that?

36. Sen. Keith Grover1:34:51

    Yeah. Um, there's some good questions. I mean, I think there's a nuance here. Agree with Senator Sandall concerns and other concerns. It really are in the session and maybe it gives us good senator some time to tinker. And if the pleasure of the chairs do think bring it back on the agenda or, or not. That's up to, I haven't talked to the Senator Plumb about that, but that would be my motion. Thank you.

37. Sen. Jen Plumb1:35:10

    Agenda. Senator Plumb, you wanna reply? No, I, I, I appreciate the opportunity to, um, make anything better. You know, I think any of us do appreciate that and I think that, um, I, I would love to continue the conversation, so I appreciate that. I also acknowledge there's probably some things that, you know, black, white, like that. There, there won't be. And maybe those are pieces that you address and cut out. So I, I appreciate the opportunity to make it better and, and, and keep it alive and keep learning from folks.

38. Committee chair1:35:39

    Okay. Uh, thank you. Uh, we have a motion on the floor, further discussion to the motion. Okay. Not seeing any, so I'm, I will place the motion. All in favor of holding the bill committee indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Or any opposed Rollette pass unanimously. We'll hold the bill Senator. And, um, I'll, I'll commit to you that if you can get this where, keep talking and we're this first committee, and if you get where you have the supportive committee, we'll get it back on. Yeah, let's keep talking.

39. Sen. Jen Plumb1:36:10

    Like I said, I always appreciate the opportunity to learn. Thanks for your work. Yep. Thanks y'all.

40. Committee chair1:36:14

    Okay. Thank you Senator. Next item on the agenda is, uh, item number seven. Unless Senator Wilson's here. No. Okay. Um, hopefully he's coming. Uh, Senator Rebe nearby.