AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: August 20, 2024
Item Number:
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Cynthia Owens, Municipal Affairs Program Manager
Subject: APPROVAL OF THE BEVERLY HILLS CITY COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE Attachment: 1. Bill Summaries
RECOMMENDATION
The Beverly Hills City Council Legislative/Lobby Committee (Vice Mayor Nazarian and Councilmember Mirisch) recommends the City Council:
• Support: City of Glendora’s League of California Cities Resolution • Support: Senate Bill 226 (Alvarado-Gil) - Controlled substances: armed possession: fentanyl
• Support: Assembly Bill 2081 (Davies) - Substance abuse: recovery and treatment programs
• Support: Assembly Bill 2574 (Valencia) - Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment programs and facilities: disclosures
• Support: Assembly Bill 2498 (Zbur) - Housing: the California Housing Security Act
• Support: Assembly Bill 2286 (Aguiar-Curry) - Vehicles: autonomous vehicles • Support: Assembly Bill 3179 (Carrillo, Juan) - Emergency telecommunications medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles
• Support: Assembly Bill 2631 (Fong, Mike) - Local agencies: ethics training • Support: H.R. 3565 the Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act of 2023 • Oppose: H.R.4639 - Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act • Oppose: Senate Bill 610 (Wiener) - Fire prevention: wildfire mitigation area:
defensible space: State Fire Marshal
• Oppose: Assembly Bill 2557 (Ortega) - Local agencies: contracts for special services and temporary help: performance reports
• Oppose: Assembly Bill 2561 (McKinnor) - Local public employees: vacant positions
/ LOBBY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT,
OPPOSE, AND/OR OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED VARIOUS
FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATIVE BILLS
Meeting Date: August 20, 2024
• Oppose: Assembly Bill 1890 (Patterson, Joe) - Public works: prevailing wage • Oppose Unless Amended: Assembly Bill 3093 (Ward) - Land use: housing element: streamlined multifamily housing
• Oppose: Senate Bill 1255 (Durazo) - Public water systems: needs analysis:
water rate assistance program
INTRODUCTION
This item seeks City Council approval of the Beverly Hills City Council Legislative/Lobby Committee’s (“Committee”) recommendations made at their August 12, 2024, meeting for the position of support, oppose, and/or oppose unless amended on various federal and state legislative bills not addressed in the City's adopted 2024 Legislative Platform.
There are two items, which were presented at the meeting, that do not require City Council concurrence (California Proposition 36, Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and Treatment-Mandated Felonies Initiative (2024) and Assembly Bill 3218 (Wood) - Unflavored Tobacco List) as the Committee’s recommendation on these bills was consistent with the City’s Legislative Platform; therefore, letters are being drafted for the Mayor to sign. While these items are not listed under the Recommendation section above, they are provided below such that all items discussed by the Committee appear in this report.
DISCUSSION
Each year, the City establishes a Legislative Platform (“Platform”) that embodies key legislative themes and priorities for the upcoming year. The Platform provides direction for our legislative advocates and City staff as they work to secure clear and strategic initiatives locally as well as in Sacramento, California and Washington, D.C. In May 2024, the City Council adopted the current Legislative Platform.
The objective of the Platform is to outline the City’s position on legislative matters and serve as the foundation for the City to support or oppose various local, state and federal legislation. The Platform seeks to not only secure critical resources for the City, but also outlines policy statements that allow City staff and the City’s legislative lobbyists to more effectively respond to and influence legislation at the local, state and federal levels.
On August 12, 2024, the Committee met to discuss a variety of federal and state legislative bills. A summary of the legislation reviewed by the Committee and their recommendations is listed below, including those bills that align with the City’s Legislative Platform that were presented to the Committee but do not require City Council concurrence as the recommendations were consistent with the City’s Platform.
More details on the bills listed below may be found in Attachment 1 to this report.
1. H.R.4639 - Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act
This bill prohibits law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies from obtaining the records or information from a third party in exchange for anything of value (e.g., purchasing them); prohibits other government agencies from sharing the records or information with law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies; and prohibits the use of such records or information in any trial, hearing, or proceeding.
Recommendation: Oppose
Meeting Date: August 20, 2024
2. California Proposition 36, Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and TreatmentMandated Felonies Initiative (2024) This ballot initiative looks to classify certain drug offenses as treatment-mandated felonies; increasing penalties for certain drug crimes by increasing sentence lengths and level of crime; requiring courts to warn individuals convicted of distributing illegal drugs of their potential future criminal liability if they distribute deadly drugs like fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine; and increasing sentences for theft based on the value of the property stolen.
Recommendation: Support.
3. City of Glendora’s League of California Cities Resolution This resolution calls for the prohibition of the state legislature from enacting any law or regulation that solely applies to elected officials of California cities or counties unless that law applies equally to the state legislature.
Recommendation: Support.
4. Senate Bill 226 (Alvarado-Gil) - Controlled substances: armed possession:
fentanyl
This measure would prohibit the possession of fentanyl while armed with a loaded and operable firearm.
Recommendation: Support.
5. Assembly Bill 2081 (Davies) - Substance abuse: recovery and treatment programs
This measure would require licensed recovery home operators to disclose to people seeking care that they can check the Department of Health Care Services’ website to confirm a facility’s compliance with state licensing laws.
Recommendation: Support.
6. Assembly Bill 2574 (Valencia) - Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment programs and facilities: disclosures
This measure revises the requirement in existing law for certain entities to disclose they own or control, or have a financial interest in, a recovery residence, and any contractual relationship with an entity that regularly provides services to addiction treatment or recovery clients, to also require a general partner, director, or officer of the licensee to make those disclosures.
Recommendation: Support.
7. Assembly Bill 3218 (Wood) - Unflavored Tobacco List
This bill requires the Attorney General (AG) to establish and maintain on its website a list of tobacco product brand styles that lack a characterizing flavor, known as the “Unflavored Tobacco List” (UTL). The bill deems any brand style not on the UTL to be a flavored tobacco product, and therefore banned in California. The bill authorizes the AG to deny inclusion of a tobacco product on the UTL, as provided.
Recommendation: Support.
Meeting Date: August 20, 2024
8. Assembly Bill 2498 (Zbur) - Housing: the California Housing Security Act This bill establishes the California Housing Security Program to provide counties with funding to administer a housing subsidy to eligible persons to reduce housing insecurity and help Californians meet their basic housing needs, subject to an appropriation.
Recommendation: Support.
9. Assembly Bill 3093 (Ward) - Land use: housing element: streamlined multifamily housing.
This bill creates two new income categories, Acutely Low Income (ALI) and Extremely Low Income (ELI), in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process and throughout Housing Element law.
Recommendation: Oppose Unless Amended
10. Senate Bill 610 (Wiener) - Fire prevention: wildfire mitigation area:
defensible space: State Fire Marshal
This bill eliminates the state’s fire hazard severity mapping for the state responsibility area (SRA) and local responsibility area (LRA) and requires the State Fire Marshal to designate Wildfire Mitigation Area (WMA), through regulations, for fire mitigation across the state.
Recommendation: Oppose
11. Assembly Bill 2557 (Ortega) - Local agencies: contracts for special services and temporary help: performance reports
This measure would burden the process for cities, counties, special districts, and schools to contract out for statutorily authorized special services by requiring onerous contractor reporting obligations and by exposing contractors’ employee data.
Recommendation: Oppose.
12. Assembly Bill 2561 (McKinnor) - Local public employees: vacant positions.
This measure would require local agencies with bargaining unit vacancy rates exceeding 15 percent for more than 180 days to produce, implement, and publish a plan to reduce their vacancy rates to 0 percent within the subsequent 180 days.
This measure would also require the public agency to present this plan during a public hearing to the governing legislative body.
Recommendation: Oppose.
13. Assembly Bill 1890 (Patterson, Joe) - Public works: prevailing wage.
This measure would require local agencies to notify the Department of Industrial Relations of any subcontractor change on a project and if there are any change orders more than $10,000, as well as create new civil penalties for local agencies.
Recommendation: Oppose.
Meeting Date: August 20, 2024
14. Assembly Bill 2286 (Aguiar-Curry) - Vehicles: autonomous vehicles This bill establishes a process for authorizing autonomous trucks on public roads without a driver.
Recommendation: Support.
15. Assembly Bill 3179 (Carrillo, Juan) - Emergency telecommunications medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles
This bill requires any state regulation requiring the procurement of zero-emission vehicles to not apply to bucket trucks or Cell on Wheels units owned or operated by emergency telecommunication service providers, until January 1, 2036.
Recommendation: Support
16. Senate Bill 1255 (Durazo) - Public water systems: needs analysis: water rate assistance program
This bill requires, on or before July 1, 2027, retail water suppliers that serve over 3,300 residential connections to establish a water rate assistance program (WRAP), as specified, to provide assistance to eligible ratepayers for their water and wastewater bills.
Recommendation: Oppose.
17. Assembly Bill 2631 (Fong, Mike) - Local agencies: ethics training.
This bill would require the Fair Political Practices Commission, in consultation with the Attorney General, to create, maintain, and make available to local agency officials an ethics training course.
Recommendation: Support.
18. H.R. 3565 the Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act of 2023 This bill addresses auctions of, and other matters related to, portions of the electromagnetic spectrum allocated for federal use. In particular, the bill extends various authorities granted to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to auction spectrum and specifies the distribution of proceeds from auctions.
Further, it increases funding available to the FCC for reimbursing communications services providers for replacing equipment or services that pose national security risks.
Recommendation: Support.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact to the City for each piece of legislation under consideration for a position by the City Council is listed in the table below.
Legislative Bill Anticipated Fiscal Impact
H.R.4639 - Fourth Amendment Is Not For
Sale Act
Unknown
California Proposition 36, Drug and Theft
Crime Penalties and Treatment-Mandated
Felonies Initiative (2024)
Unknown
Meeting Date: August 20, 2024
Legislative Bill Anticipated Fiscal Impact
City of Glendora’s League of California
Cities Resolution
Little to No Fiscal Impact
Senate Bill 226 (Alvarado-Gil) - Controlled
substances: armed possession: fentanyl.
Unknown.
Assembly Bill 2081 (Davies) - Substance
abuse: recovery and treatment programs.
Little to No Fiscal Impact
Assembly Bill 2574 (Valencia) - Alcoholism
or drug abuse recovery or treatment
programs and facilities: disclosures.
Little to No Fiscal Impact
Assembly Bill 3218 (Wood) - Unflavored
Tobacco List.
No Anticipated Fiscal Impact
Assembly Bill 2498 (Zbur) - Housing: the
California Housing Security Act.
Little to No Fiscal Impact
Assembly Bill 3093 (Ward) - Land use:
housing element: streamlined multifamily
housing.
Unknown
Senate Bill 610 (Wiener) - Fire prevention:
wildfire mitigation area: defensible space:
State Fire Marshal.
Unknown
Assembly Bill 2557 (Ortega) - Local
agencies: contracts for special services
and temporary help: performance reports.
Potential Fiscal Impact is Unknown, but
Could be Significant
Assembly Bill 2561 (McKinnor) - Local
public employees: vacant positions.
Potential Fiscal Impact is Unknown, but
Could be Significant
Assembly Bill 1890 (Patterson, Joe) -
Public works: prevailing wage.
Unknown
Assembly Bill 2286 (Aguiar-Curry) -
Vehicles: autonomous vehicles.
Little to No Fiscal Impact
Assembly Bill 3179 (Carrillo, Juan) -
Emergency telecommunications mediumand heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles.
Potential Cost Savings to the City as it
Delays the Implementation of ZeroEmission Heavy-Duty Vehicles to January 1, 2036
Senate Bill 1255 (Durazo) - Public water
systems: needs analysis: water rate
assistance program
Unknown
Assembly Bill 2631 (Fong, Mike) - Local
agencies: ethics training.
Unknown
H.R. 3565 the Spectrum Auction
Reauthorization Act of 2023
Little to No Anticipated Fiscal Impact
Keith Sterling,
Deputy City Manager
Approved By
Attachment 1
TO: Cindy Owens, Municipal Affairs Program Manager
City of Beverly Hills
FROM: Jamie Jones
[email protected]
202-543-3744
DATE: August 2, 2024
RE: H.R. 4639, the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act Representative Warren Davidson, a Republican from Louisiana, introduced H.R. 4639, the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, on July 14, 2023. The bill would close the legal loophole that allows data brokers to sell Americans’ personal information to law enforcement and intelligence agencies without a subpoena, court order, or warrant.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Defense Intelligence Agency are among several government entities known to have solicited private data brokers to access information for which a court order is generally required. A growing number of lawmakers have come to view the practice as an end run around the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable government searches and seizures.
More specifically, the bipartisan legislation:
• Requires the government to get a court order to force data brokers to disclose data — the same kind of court order needed to compel data from internet and communications companies.
• Stops law enforcement and intelligence agencies buying data on people in the U.S. and about Americans abroad, if the data was obtained from a user’s account or device, or via deception, hacking, violations of a contract, privacy policy, or terms of service. • Closes loopholes that permit the intelligence community to buy or otherwise acquire metadata about Americans’ international calls, texts and emails to family and friends abroad, and obtain records about their web browsing — information that would normally require a court order to compel.
• Takes away the Attorney General’s authority to grant civil immunity to providers and other third parties for assistance with surveillance not required or permitted by statute. Providers retain immunity for surveillance assistance ordered by a court.
The House passed the bill by a vote of 219 to 199 on April 17, 2024. H.R. 4639 has been referred to the Senate. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon introduced S.2576, a companion bill to H.R. 4639.
The Senate bill is pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
SUPPORT
Proponents of H.R. 4639, composed of congressional progressives (such as Reps. Jared Nadler, Jayapal Pramila, Zoe Lofgren, Sara Jacobs) and Maga Members (such as Andy Biggs, Thomas Massie) argue that enactment of the bill is necessary to protect Americans’ right to privacy from government overreach and intrusion. According to Representative Jared Nadler, the Ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, “The government should not be allowed to purchase its way around the rules Congress has enacted to protect the privacy of American citizens.” The ACLU and like-minded organization support the bill.
OPPOSE
Opponents of the bill, particularly the law enforcement community, argue that the bill will restrict law enforcement’s access to critical investigative information that is utilized every day to combat violent and serious crimes such as murder, kidnapping, drug trafficking, human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, terrorism, and threats of mass violence.
The Biden Administration strongly opposes the bill. The White House argues that responsible access to, and use of, commercially available information is critical to scores of vital missions carried out on behalf of the American people, including: protecting our American personnel and capabilities; understanding the activities and capabilities of foreign governments like the People’s Republic of China; tracking the global shipment of deadly drugs like fentanyl; detecting dangerous cyber threats; assisting the victims of serious crimes like cyberattacks and child exploitation; assessing and disrupting terrorist activity; and more.
Law Enforcement organizations argue that H.R. 4639 will restrict law enforcement’s access to critical investigative information that is utilized every day to combat violent and serious crimes such as murder, kidnapping, drug trafficking, human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, terrorism, and threats of mass violence. Preventing law enforcement from being able to access it efficiently will make communities less safe. The value of the investigative tools this legislation seeks to regulate cannot be understated, especially at the outset of an investigation. Modern law enforcement investigations are complex and often require investigators to triage a wide range of leads. Third-party data, which is readily available and widely used in a range of non-law enforcement contexts, is crucial in generating leads as it helps law enforcement expeditiously determine what may and may not be relevant to an investigation.
Law enforcement entities that oppose the bill include: Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs of America, National Association of Police Organizations and National District Attorneys Associations.
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
POLICY AND MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Liaison/Legislative/Lobby Committee
FROM: Cynthia Owens, Municipal Affairs Program Manager
DATE: August 12, 2024
SUBJECT: California Proposition 36, Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and TreatmentMandated Felonies Initiative (2024) ATTACHMENTS: None
INTRODUCTION
California Proposition 36, Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and Treatment-Mandated Felonies Initiative (“Initiative”) has qualified for the November 2024 ballot. This ballot initiative looks to classify certain drug offenses as treatment-mandated felonies; increasing penalties for certain drug crimes by increasing sentence lengths and level of crime; requiring courts to warn individuals convicted of distributing illegal drugs of their potential future criminal liability if they distribute deadly drugs like fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine; and increasing sentences for theft based on the value of the property stolen.
This item is being presented to the City Council Liaison/Legislative/Lobby Committee (“Committee”) as one of the key tenants of the City’s Legislative Platform is:
• Support efforts to overturn Proposition 47 and Proposition 57 and continue to raise awareness regarding their deficiencies as it relates to crime This Initiative would make changes to Proposition 47.
DISCUSSION
This Initiative would increase penalties for certain drug crimes by increasing sentence lengths and level of crime. The Initiative would also add fentanyl to the list of drugs (cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine) that would warrant a felony charge if an individual possesses one of the listed drugs and a loaded firearm. The punishment for this crime is up to four years in prison.
Currently, possessing fentanyl and a loaded firearm is punishable by up to one year in jail.
The Initiative would also increase sentences based on the quantity of certain drugs sold illegally.
The Initiative would also require individuals who receive increased sentences because of this to serve their entire sentence in state prison regardless of their criminal history.
The Initiative would increase penalties for certain theft crimes. For crimes where money or property worth $950 or less is stolen, the Initiative would make the crime punishable as a felony for individuals who have two or more prior theft-related convictions. The Initiative would make the punishment up to three years in jail or prison depending on their criminal history. Currently, it is punishable by up to six months in jail. The Initiative would also increase sentences based on the amount of property stolen.
2 of 2
The Yes on Prop 36 - Californians for Safer Communities is leading the campaign in support of the Initiative. Official supporters of the campaign include but are not limited to the Republican Party of California, California District Attorneys Association, California State Sheriffs' Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Retailers Association, San Francisco Mayor London Breed (Nonpartisan), San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan (Nonpartisan), Target, Walmart, and Walgreen’s. Currently, the California Democratic Party and the AntiRecidivism Coalition are listed as opposed.
The top donors in support of this Initiative include Walmart ($2.5 million), Target ($1.5 million), and Home Depot ($1 million). Donors to the “Committee to Protect Public Safety, No on Prop 36, include the ACLU of Northern California Issues Committee, Django Bondman, and Quinn Delaney. The table below depicts the campaign contributions raised by those that support and oppose this ballot initiative.
Contributions Expenditures
Support Committees $8,972,835.44 $8,870,020.20
Opposition Committees $195,000.00 $65,050.00
FISCAL IMPACT
No anticipated fiscal impact
RECCOMENDATION
The Initiative involves a policy matter that may have a nexus to the City’s adopted Legislative Platform language. Specifically, the following statement may apply to this ballot initiative:
• Support efforts to overturn Proposition 47 and Proposition 57 and continue to raise awareness regarding their deficiencies as it relates to crime After discussion of the Initiative, the Committee may recommend the following actions:
• Support the Initiative;
• Oppose the Initiative;
• Remain neutral; or
• Provide other direction to City staff.
Should the Liaisons recommend a position of support, then staff will prepare a letter for the Mayor to sign as the Initiative appears to be consistent with the City’s Legislative Platform. Any other positions recommended by the Liaisons will require the concurrence of the City Council and staff will place this item on a future City Council agenda.
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
POLICY AND MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Liaison/Legislative/Lobby Committee
FROM: Cynthia Owens, Municipal Affairs Program Manager
DATE: August 12, 2024
SUBJECT: City of Glendora’s League of California Cities Resolution ATTACHMENT: 1. Proposed League of California Cities Resolution - Glendora This item is a request by Councilmember Mirisch for the City to consider a position on the City of Glendora’s League of California Cities Resolution (Attachment 1). The resolution calls for the prohibition of the state legislature from enacting any law or regulation that solely applies to elected officials of California cities or counties unless that law applies equally to the state legislature.
After discussion of City of Glendora’s League of California Cities Resolution, the Committee may recommend the following actions:
• Support the City of Glendora’s League of California Cities Resolution; • Support if amended the City of Glendora’s League of California Cities Resolution; • Oppose the City of Glendora’s League of California Cities Resolution; • Oppose unless amended the City of Glendora’s League of California Cities Resolution; • Remain neutral; or
• Provide other direction to City staff.
Should the Committee recommend the City take a position on this resolution, then staff will place the item on a future City Council Agenda for concurrence Attachment 1
July 10, 2024
The City Council of Glendora
is proposing the following resolution for consideration at the California League of Cities annual conference
on
October 18, 2024
Proposed Resolution: (“To ensure fairness and equal treatment for all government officials in California”)
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not approve, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”
The following five city council members are in concurrence with their letters of support (attached):
✓ Mayor John Cruikshank, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
✓ Mayor Bill Uphoff, City of Lomita
✓ Mayor Robert Gonzales, City of Azusa
✓ Mayor April Verlato, City of Arcadia
✓ Mayor Tim Hepburn, City of La Verne
Please confirm receipt of this request.
Sincerely,
Michael Allawos
Council Member
City of Glendora
2 •••
3 •
•
•
•
4 2
••••
•••••
2 •
ooo
••
o
3 o
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2 •
oo
•
ooo
•
oo
••
ooo
•
oo
•••
3 ••
2 •••
3 •••••••
4 •
oo
•
oo
▪▪
o
▪▪
o
▪
o
▪▪
•
••
5 •••••••••
2 •
oo
3 •
oo
•••
o
•
o
•
4 2
3 ••
4 •••••••
2 •
oo
•
oo
▪▪▪▪
•
oo
•
o
▪▪
•
o
3 •
•
•
•
4 5
6 7
8 2
•••••••
3 2
••••
3 ••••••••
2 3
•••••••••
4 2
••
o
▪
o
▪▪
••••
3 •
2 •
oo
•
oo
•
ooo
•
o
3 oo
•
oo
•••••••
4 •
•
•
5 ••••••
2 ••
TO: Cindy Owens, Municipal Affairs Program Manager
City of Beverly Hills
FROM: Jamie Jones
[email protected]
202-543-3744
DATE: July 31, 2024
RE: H.R. 3565, the Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act of 2023 On May 22nd, the House Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously passed H.R. 3565, the Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act, by a vote of 50 to 0. The bill is sponsored by Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington State, the Republican Chair of the Committee.
H.R. 3565 reauthorize the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) authority to auction spectrum, which has been lapsed for most of this year, and authorize using the auction proceeds to support grants to remove banned Chinese network equipment and to support the rollout of Next Generation 911. By passing H.R. 3565, the Energy and Commerce Committee is attempting to incentivize the Senate to act on its various versions of the bill in order to enact compromise legislation before the end of the year.
Local governments and Public Safety stakeholders recognize the urgent need to replace the current 911 system, which is analog based and obsolete, with a digital, internet-based system. Instead of just fielding calls, which is what most communities have access to now, next-generation 911 systems can pinpoint a caller’s location, accept texts, and enable residents in a crisis to send videos and images to dispatchers. Besides the ability to transmit a greater flow of information in realtime, these new 911 systems have the added benefit of being more resilient to outages.
According to APCO, there are over 240 million emergency 911 calls per year, highlighting the critical role that law enforcement, fire, EMS, and 911 professionals play in ensuring public safety.
The limitations of the current system, which is largely based on technology dating back to the 1960s and primarily supports voice calls with limited texting capabilities, can hinder the ability of emergency services to efficiently respond to diverse emergency situations.
While H.R. 3565, as currently drafted, has strong bipartisan, bicameral support, House GOP leaders may use the bill as a legislative vehicle to carry other broadband policy initiatives that congressional Democrats oppose. Nevertheless, advancing H.R. 3565 through the House committee process is a positive step in eventually securing federal assistance in modernizing our nation’s 911 system.