 Good afternoon. You are back with the Vermont house government operations committee where we intend to do a final markup and vote on as 124. I think without, without any further delay, I will invite Betsy and to point us to the document that she'll be taking us through. Alright, hello. Let me just quickly I should have done this also I will send a quick email to all of you containing a potential revised edited draft 4.1 this morning I sent the editors your 3.1 draft the clean copy. And they worked so hard to get it done quickly get it done get that edited quickly the 3.1 that we reviewed this morning. And then what I did in the meantime, in between our break is make the few changes that you had discussed this morning. So let me just I emailed that to you and Andrea will be able to post it soon also so people will be able to look at this draft 4.1 clean copy edited. It's an actual strike all amendment form, except for right now for the purposes of this discussion I have highlighted the six changes that you discussed making to it this morning. So it's okay to proceed. We've got Lauren has a question. Yes, I just wanted to ask Andrea to post that on our legislative documents and handout pages quickly she canceled, because I otherwise I have to leave this screen and go over to, you know, on my iPad, but I've got my laptop here so she could post it there. And I had just sent it to her before the meeting started so that's why there's a little lag in posting it should be there now. Awesome thank you Andrea. Okay, I will refresh that page might just take a minute to go over the interwebs. I think we deep breath for a moment and given that Betsy Ann had about a five minute, well 10 minute break I guess between appropriations and coming back to committee thank you. That's the last one. Okay, got it. Thank you Andrea. Okay. So, this is 3.1 taking the 3.1 clean copy, which had incorporated all the annotated revisions and then adding to it the six changes that you discussed today. So Madam chair you're looking for just a super high level run through pointing out the changes. I believe so. Alright, page one changing the name of the criminal justice training council to criminal justice council in order to reflect all of its duties and powers and then directing ledge council to change that name in during the statutory revision process not having to come back to you with a technical corrections bill. Page two updates to law enforcement applicants and adding in their current law duty description to maintain statewide standards of officer professional conduct through their professional regulation duties. And on page two line 17 that they're also approving education programs that's current. Moving on to page three, the council membership itself would not change as you reviewed it this morning. That would mean keeping on there the commissioner of corrections, adding the commissioner of mental health as proposed by the Senate, then scrolling over to page four, starting online 16 those seven new public members that would be appointed to the governor. No law enforcement connection, not be legislators or employed in the criminal justice system. At least one of them would be a mental health crisis worker. Page five one, a member who's an individual with an lived experience of mental health condition or psychiatric disability, and then two members chosen from among the Vermont chapters of the NAACP from nominations made to the governor from those chapters. Still online 10 governor appointing the chair of the council from among those public members. Online 13 council members are entitled to per diem compensation and reimbursement of expenses as permitted under 32 vsa 1010 from monies appropriated the council. That means you get a per diem if you're not already getting paid to be there. For example, our commissioners who serve on there are a G they already have state salaries it's part of their state duties to serve on this council as this as you would require them to section five at the bottom of page five allows current members to continue to serve out under the remainder of their terms if they're going to be reappointed under the new membership. But here's your first change you discussed this morning on page six line for that the new members of the council have to be appointed by December one, your prior draft said So that's change one page six section six is where I was going to have to adopt rules to identify and implement alternate routes to certification aside from what's provided the academy and then lower down having to be required to offer courses in different areas of the state and strive to offer non overnight courses whenever possible. On page seven. There's that language on line 17 maintaining the as past senate deadline that by July one and next year a level two officer may be able to transition to level three by portfolio experiential learning or club testing without having to restart the certification process. House of probes did discuss the concern that the council has in regard to not having that it stated it did not have the resources to meet this requirement, but so far no one has indicated they requested a change to this date at this time so right now it's leaving it at the 21 deadline on page eight and section eight here is the report back by January 15 from the executive director of the council. Darn it and how did I miss a just or no I did fix it okay criminal justice council. Okay online seven. Their report back on how they're how things are going on restructuring its programs and so the first report back is about how what its plan is to replace some of its overnight training with non overnight training. The second change that you discussed this morning was that they they would have to specifically address in this report back any plans it has to offer training by remote means reflect what you wanted to do there. Okay, and they'll also be telling you online 17 how it's going with that transition for level two to level three. And how it's changing its restructuring its programs to handle that so you will be hearing about that in January. So, if you don't change that date now potentially that'd be a date to change next session, but they do have the rule adoption deadline of July 123 to to adopt the rules it's required to about restructuring its programs. So page nine section nine there's that can Council services being contingent on agency compliance with reporting requirements and other policies required by the Council chapter, not to adopt procedures on how to handle that new requirement. Page 10 is essentially a technical update to statute to reflect current day realities which is that one agency can provide training to other officers and those officers can get credit for that that goes toward their certification. Page 10 section 11 there's that duty to contact a current agency before a potential hiring agency is going to hire the officer they have to get the written disclosure from the current agency about the officers performance there. It's a written disclosure page 11 line 16 is the requirement you discussed this morning that they have to keep that disclosure confidential. Page nine 18 has the prohibition on a CBA between an agency and the bargaining unit for officers employed by that agency from having a prohibition on the exchange of information between the employing agency and another agency about the officers performance there. Page 12 sec 12 has transitional provisions on those new disclosure requirements. A is saying that the requirement to disclose does not apply if there's a binding non disclosure agreement prohibiting that disclosure. And then subsection B is providing that a CBA that already prohibit that's in effect and that prohibits the exchange of information. You don't have to break the contract of those that CBA provision, but that requirement will apply upon the expiration or termination that CBA and to any other CBA that takes effect on after the effective date of that section. Section 13 at the bottom of page 12 in regard to the use of body cameras and a body camera policy and complying with one of your officers are going to be using a body cam so a has a new subdivision one designation but only the one designation is what's new. That contains the language that starting on January one each agency that authorizes its officers to use body cams has to follow the model body camera policy that the council will establish. But as a transitional provision because there will be officers that are using body cams that includes the requirement for all DPS to use law enforcement officers to use body cams the act. 147 slash s2 19 and any other officers might be using body cams the new subdivision to requires until that date in subdivision one the January one 22 each agency that authorizes its officers to use body cams shall adopt follow and enforce a model body worn camera policy established by the leab pursuant to the 2016 act and each officer who uses a body cam needs to comply with that policy so there will be a body cam policy in place it's the lebs and that's what will control until the council. Model body camera policies established and officers and agencies have to start complying with that on January one 22. So that was another one of your changes you discussed today. Section 14 contains that prohibition on facial recognition technology unless the use would be permitted with respect to drones under 20 vs a 46 22, which does authorize the usual facial recognition technology in limited circumstances. There's a definition of facial recognition technology on page 14. Then we get to section 15 which is about the council's duty to professionally regulate officers and here this section is discussing when agencies have to report to the council alleged unprofessional conduct committed by an officer, specifically in regard to category B allegations on page 15. On line eight agency has to report that when there's a credible complaint, not after an agency goes through a full investigative process. Page 16 line five is the requirement for the council to provide a copy of any investigative report it receives to the council advisory committee, which recommends appropriate action to take in regard to an officer who's the subject of that report. Then we get to section 16, which are the law enforcement recommendations these are reports that will come back to you for the general assembly to do further work in this area, as you may choose to do so in the next biennium. This provides that by January 15. Entities have to report their progress on the following topics, including any recommendations for legislative action, with that exception that the criminal justice council shall submit a verbal progress report to the gov ups committees by that date January 15. And any recommendations for legislative action on or before March 15 21 so you're giving them more time to come back to you with recommendations for legislative action. Otherwise everybody else has to do so by January 15. You're going to be getting on page 17 recommendations about officer qualifications from the LAB and the council. You'll be getting recommendations on officer training from the council. On page 18 I just made a terminology update to refer to people with a mental health condition or psychiatric disability to more fully describe the people that experience those conditions. And just noting on my page 18 starting online nine. There's talk about the restructuring of the council and just a reminder that you had eliminated the language about moving the police academy so that no longer exists there. Online 18 for models of civilian oversight. And G coming back to you with recommendations after consulting with entities that include BLS is Center for Justice reform on page 19 line for you'll also be getting recommendations back about reporting allegations of officer misconduct. And a number five access to complaint information that will be coming back to you from the council advisory committee. Body cameras number six online 18 here adding back in the language that the LAB would be required to report any changes it deems necessary to its body. Model body camera policy that it established pursuant to the 2016 act required it to do so, since there will be the requirement from now until January 1 2022 for officers to follow that policy. So we're just rolling on page 20. You'll be getting a report back on military equipment for the council will recommend a statewide policy on officers acquisition of it. All right, page 21, the bill starts to move into the topic of state data collection and analysis. This is the section 17 requirement for GAC to consult with executive director of racial equity, social equity caucus and the CPO and accept recommendations from other entities in order to approve by that date population level indicators that demonstrate the quality of life for black, indigenous or people of color, as they relate to the current law population level outcomes. And once those are approved by the GAC, the CPO would be required to report on them in the state outcomes report. Section 18 is the amendment to the outcomes state outcomes reports statute to provide on page 22 online nine the more language about the intent and the purpose of the outcomes and indicators, which are that outcomes are intended to reflect the well being of all Vermonters and indicators are intended to represent the experience of all Vermonters, including an especially Vermonters who are members of marginalized groups, as they are the ones that are more likely to be the outliers on that indicator data. So if you have that statute there for reference if you get any questions about the current process for approving indicators you can see that on page 23, starting online six, with that GAC authority to do so now. Page 23 line 17 section 19, there is the state granting authority contingent on compliance with the roadside stop data reporting requirements, and now the death or serious bodily injury reporting requirements that are required. When an officer is involved in a mental health crisis and death or serious bodily injury results. The one correction or the one update to this language is on page 23 line 21 you discussed earlier to strike local proceeding law enforcement agencies so it's clear that this applies to all agencies who would like to get a grant. Just a note on that this section has an effective date of January one 2021 because that was the effective date that you had in S2 19 for adding this language so accordingly that would also take effect. These amendments to that language would also take effect on January one. Page 24 section 20 is in regard to the VCIC requirement to have definitions that all officers must use when entering data into their agency system of records. So the VCIC on page 25 consulting with the Vermont crime research group statewide racial justice groups and statewide groups representing individuals with lived experience of a mental health condition or psychiatric disability in establishing and providing training on a uniform list of definitions to be used by agencies when they're entering in crime data into their system of records which might be the court or Spillman and every officer would have to use those definitions when entering their data. Then we get into the LAB repealing it from where it currently is in law putting it where it's supposed to be maintaining the Senate's proposed changes to the membership there be four new members added to it. As discussed there's no per diem or expense reimbursement authorized. Then the Senate, aside from changing the membership or in accordance with changing that membership just updated the quorum requirements accordingly. But you had not discussed making any changes to that page 28 section 23 is just a recodification directive it's just saying that now any references to LAB in 24 VSA 1939 where it currently lives are going to be deemed to be references to 20 VSA 1818 and Ledge Council needs to revise accordingly any reference to the old location and statute section 24 is requiring LAB to include in its annual report. Recommendations in regarding the ways towns can increase access to law enforcement services. LAB has to file an annual report. Then starting at the bottom of page 28 we get into the Department of Public Safety Dispatch issue and section 25 so let's scroll over to the relevant section which is subsection I on page 29. As you discussed in your draft 3.1, you can see on page 29, starting online 15, the elimination of the current law language that allows DPS to charge sufficient charges to recover the costs of their dispatching that they perform under contract. And says dispatch functions that are fully funded under these contracts are authorized under the grant statutory authority. Hold the thought on this because there's a also a related session law section right after, but just a reminder on page 30 that 1873 removal of commissioner. There has been a dead law sitting in statute since 1979, since the Vermont Supreme Court said that this language was superseded, because all governor appointees under the office of governor serve at the governor's pleasure. This language has been outdated pursuant to the Vermont Supreme Court case law. The statute said that Commissioner public safety can only be removed after hearing and only for cause. It is a really fun case to read. If you ever want to read it. Basically, the governor tried to use the new authority to remove the commissioner is pleasure and then the person just showed up the next day saying hey I get to continue to serve. But anyway, it's just a technical correction because it's been dead law. We get to section 26 on page 31 line 16. And this is in regard to that dispatch fee structure authority. So this new language is updating what you had earlier today in your draft 3.1. We had the prior understanding that DPS was in some cases charging for dispatch. Nolan confirmed with DPS that's not happening DPS has these contractual arrangements but it's not charging for them. What it was planning to do was set charges that they were going to start charging municipalities. This language would say instead that in accordance with the amendments to 20 vs a 1871 sub I that we reviewed up above, which eliminated that charging authority from law DPS shall not charge fees in any contractual arrangements it enters into to perform dispatching functions for state municipal or other emergency services until the General Assembly establishes in law a dispatch fee structure for those charges. So it is clear that DPS cannot charge for the dispatch functions it performs until General Assembly establishes a fee structure. Page so can I can I just flag this here so that I don't lose sight of this after we finish and vote on this. I just want to be sure that we get a heads up to the chair of the ways and means committee about this I believe that the language we've put in here. Because it doesn't change or establish a fee shouldn't require the bill to go to ways and means. But since we have had a few snags along that line in the last couple of weeks. I'd feel better if we sent her this particular section and and just gave her a heads up to ask for it if she feels like she needs it but I don't believe that she will. At least possible it's going to get automatically referred by rule just because even though DPS is not charging by statutory authority currently has it could so it would just depend. Whether it has to go there or not but good I good call just to make the chair aware of that. Page 32 line three. Here's the language you already reviewed about DPS having a process to propose to the General Assembly a fee structure it would say that by March 15 of the next year. There are at least three public hearings and consult with the LCT EMS advisory committee, the police chiefs association state firefighters association and local emergency medical services police and fire agencies. I would support by that date to house go box house ways and means Senate go box Senate finance, the department's recommendations for an equitable dispatch fee structure for DPS to charge for dispatching emergency medical service police and fire services and potential funding mechanisms for those charges that do not rely on property taxes. And if the department decides to overrule substantial arguments and considerations raised against the fee structure potential funding mechanisms it ultimately recommends DPS has to include in its report a description of those arguments and considerations and the reasons for the department's decision to overrule. Let's get into the EMS part of the bill on page 33. What's going on here is a substitution of Department of Health for State Board of Health and establishing EMS districts and issuing ambulance licenses keeps rolling page 35 there's that language requirement about ambulance licenses can only be issued to be provided if those services will be provided in a non discriminatory manner doesn't discriminate on the basis of income funding source or severity of health needs in order to ensure access to ambulance services within the licensee service area and Department of Health would be required to adopt rules in order to administer that new qualification scrolling bottom of that page 35 its Department of Health that issues ambulance licenses not the State Board Page 36 section 28 is a requirement for the HRAP the health resources allocation plan to address EMS resources and needs that are identified by the EMS advisory committee which appears later in the bill I'll just pause here madam chair. I remember you had mentioned that health care was going to be reviewing the EMS or at least partially this language. So just putting it back on the radar in case they need further information. Yeah, I did make the chair of house health care aware of this. Again last night in case he had any concerns and and I had told him at that point that we were intending to vote it out in our 830 committee meeting so I'm going to take that as the language the way it is but I suppose if there was some earth shattering change that needed to be made they could offer it as a floor amendment. Page 38 line 10 we get into the language to just make it clear in the statute that you still have to be affiliated with an affiliated agency in order to be EMS personnel. And just due to some of the removal the credentialing requirements there. It's better to from the feedback from DOH it's better to make clear that affiliation is still required even though credentialing is not required, you still have to be affiliated. Page 39 starting online eight is a requirement for department of health to establish at least three levels of EMS instructors and the education required for each right now there's only one. Page 40. We get into that alternative for psychomotor skills testing the hands on testing of your qualifications to be EMS personnel. The national crediting entity that and our EMT requires its own psychomotor skills testing for the higher license types the advanced EMTs and the paramedics but it does allow flexibility for testing the psychomotor skills for the lower license types. And so this would allow psychomotor skills testing for EMRs and EMTs to be accomplished either by the demonstration of those skills competencies as part of their education as approved by the department of health or by the and our EMT psychomotor exam. And we'll just say hands on. We've just got more updates about the affiliation requirement on page 41 top of page 42 is a requirement for department of health to establish by rule and entry level certification for EMS first responders. So this would be the lowest level authority to be EMS personnel. But it could help get more people into providing EMS services. Page 42 line five is eliminating an outdated statute that doesn't need to address transitional provision from certification a licensure that happened multiple years ago. Second is the sunset review where DOH would have to at least once every five years do an ongoing review of the continuing competency requirements that any EMS personnel professional has to achieve in order to renew his or her license and it's modeled off your S233 uniform licensing bill. It contains similar language for example on page 43 where the department has to amend its rules or propose necessary statutory amendments in order to revise the continuing competency requirements that are not necessary to protect the public. On line 10, we've got the EMS advisory committee and adding the new EMS Education Council. On page 44, the EMS advisory committee would need to include in its annual report the mutual aid calls that are going to outside of the area that EMS personnel have to respond to. And on line six, that new requirement for the EMS advisory council to identify EMS resources and needs in the EMS districts and provide that information in the Green Mountain Care Board so that they can include it in their periodic revisions to the HRAP, the health resource allocation plan, which is addressed earlier in the bill. On line 11 is that EMS Education Council, which would be new and it would be established from among the current EMS advisory committee. This new education council can sponsor training and education programs that are required for licensure in accordance with the Department of Health required standards for training and education, and then also provide advice to DOH regarding the standards for emergency medical personnel licensure and any recommendations for changes to those standards. Page 45, there's just an update to the statute that provides to whom EMS training funding can go and it's adding in the new certified Vermont EMS first responder certification that would be added by this bill and then also the current law licensed EMRs, emergency medical responders, so that they could also have access to that funding. Page 46 contains the transitional provisions for these EMS portions of the bill. The rule adoption deadline is July 1 unless LCAR extends it. The ambulance license service non-disc, ambulance service license non-discriminatory requirement begins on July 1. Or by the date DOH adopts the rules to administer that whichever is later because they could get an extension to adopt those rules. C is that language to transition an instructor that's currently licensed. There's one instructor license level now. And this would say that the person get transitioned into the new level and according to the three that will be created pursuant to this bill. So you go into the license level that's consistent with your scope of practice from among the three license levels. D on line 18 is the requirement to establish that new Vermont EMS first responder certification by July 1 of next year. And then E on page 47 line three is the first sunset review that they'll have to do. It would need to be in conjunction with the rulemaking required by this act. So as they're looking at these rules, they'll take a look at those continuing competency requirements. See if any of them need to change because they're not necessary to protect the public. And then finally, we've got public safety planning with your new language about regional planning commissions creating an inventory for its towns of each town's public safety resources that are available to them. And how those resources can be shared on so towns can better understand how those resources can be shared on a regional basis. You discussed bumping up the deadline to be July 1 22 and then the state inventory would have to address mutual aid agreements that any towns have and any public safety plans that they have. And we're talking about public safety resources it's referring to law enforcement fire and EMS and dispatch. Finally your effective dates overall the bill will take effect on October one, except that new council membership would take effect on December one in accordance with the deadline to make those appointments by December one. So that language regarding the contingency for state grant for law enforcement, need to be contingent on complying with data collection that takes effect on January one, as you or language did for as to 19. Excellent. Thank you. So there we have it committee we have a 48 page bill. Jim Harrison. Yes. Thank you, Madam chair I was wondering if maybe ledge console will go through the bill just one more time. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. As always, good job Betsy and you're very. I learned to talk quicker so I could, you would leave me in the dust. Anyhow, as with any bill, there are certainly parts that I think are very positive and parts that I might take issue with. And I really like to support this bill. But I have a an exception and I will just not to the book to belabor the point, but I would throw it out one more time. And that is allowing the governor to appoint the chair of that. Pretty dramatically expanded criminal justice console. I don't really worry about putting a brand new person in from the get go and having all these requirements and studies and reports and policies thrown at them. I just think we're setting ourselves up for a less than perfect outcome. I would encourage the committee to consider making that change and if you would indulge me then I would like to be able to support the bill. We can certainly have that conversation one last time I appreciate that that is a sticking point for you Jim and and I understand that it is. It is a bit of a change. But we did. We did cross this bridge a few times earlier today. Warren, I was persuaded by house comments earlier today that really the chair doesn't have to be the expert in all things, the job of the chairs to be an excellent facilitator of the meeting and to draw other people into the conversation. So I don't, I don't see the necessity of having great experience at the head of the table. They just have to be fair and impartial and run a good meeting. I would support leaving it as it is. Although I understand Jim's concern. I really do. I wouldn't be afraid of having the governor make the appointment, but I like the language as we have it. That's that's all I got. Thanks Warren. Any other committee discussion on that point before we move to a motion, JP. Just renew my preference. From my set a couple times ready I prefer to have the chair elected from the council members themselves. If that's not to be the case then I guess my, my second choice would be to have the governor appoint, but from have the ability to appoint a chair from all members of the council. Again, that's just my opinion and my belief and I'm very strong on that, but thank you. Other committee discussion. All right. I would. At this point, I guess I would entertain a motion to move this bill out of committee. John Gannon. I moved to approve draft 4.1 of S 124. I'll give Marsha a moment to pull out her roll call sheets. Any other committee discussion before we move to a vote. Marsha when you're ready. I am ready madam chair. Dan. Yes. It's Miller. Yes. Ro Wickey. Yes. Leclerc. No. Harrison. No. Gardner. Yes. Classic. No. Cooper. Yes. Ronald. Yes. Colston. Yes. And Copeland hands us. Yes. So the vote is 830. Thank you. Thank you committee for a marathon of. Work and productivity on the bill. And, um, and I am so thankful to all of you for, uh, your engagement in this and for the work that, uh, that you did to improve all aspects of the bill. Um, even if in the end, uh, there was a sticking point that kept you from being able to support it. Um, and, um, and Nolan for your help with, uh, with everything on this bill. Um, Betsy Ann has probably got the bill memorized at this point because we've made her go through it so many times for, for us. Um, but thank you Betsy Ann for your great work on this. Uh, Jim. Thank you. If she had gone through it one more time, maybe I would have seen the light. Um, just a procedural question, madam chair. Um, does this mean we get tomorrow morning off? Yes, it does. Thank you. It means that you don't have to report to committee at 830. You can, um, report to the floor. I believe at 10. Unless there's something else that you'd like to take up tomorrow morning, which, you know, I don't know what to do with that. I don't know what to do with that. This is a hard working committee. There's always next week. If we have other things we want to take up. Madam chair. I have a question. Um, if the member from Chittendon would like to go through the bill one more time, maybe he could be one of the presenters. And could get a better understanding that way. And do lots of extra homework. Evidently he needs it. Obviously he needs it. But I think he's going to be able to do that, smooth as, uh, legislative council is on, um, explaining the various sections of a bill smooth and thorough, I should say he's got a lot of work to do to be able to do that. That is a very, very high bar for him. Yes. Alright. So, um, a couple of other logistics. I believe that this is coming up on the floor on. It'll go over to appropriations. They have taken some testimony. They'll let us know if they need us back. It'll be up during the week next week. However, I do want to just make note to the committee so that we can all manage our expectations, myself included, that with the understanding that the legislature is moving to final adjournment on this 2020 legislative session by next Friday. In the event that there was some significant compromise that needed to be made in order for the Senate to be able to concur with our proposal of amendment, they may bring that back to us in the form of an amendment that we might be asked to make in a friendly nature to our own bill on the floor of the house. I just want to make note of that, that we are going to make sure that the Senate has had a chance to look at it and can live with the changes that we've made in this short time frame. Madam Speaker, we'd be very open to some significant amendments on this legislation. I hear you. There might be other people like maybe two other people who agree with you on that one. This afternoon is going to be a bit of a marathon floor session. John Gannon, are you ready? Do you need us to send you off with some really good wishes for hopefully, what is your final report of the cannabis bill? I truly hope it is my final report of the cannabis bill. I hope all the members of the committee can support the conference committee report. It was great to work with Rob, and Janet, and the senators weren't that hard to deal with. It took a long time to get where we ended up. It'll be interesting how it goes on the floor, but. Just make sure you mentioned the hard-working and talented Government Operations Committee. That will do the trick every time. Well, I just want to say thank you to you, John, and to Rob as well for putting in what is now going on a year and a half of work and thought and preparation into this day, and we certainly hope that it goes well for you, so that this gift that keeps on giving can go be somebody else's baby. I have to tell you, Madam Chair, I wasn't a user before, but I'm highly considering it now. There are certain things that 2020 is bringing us that are challenging, and this one has been a continuous challenge, so thank you, John, for your good work, and we'll be right there behind you on the floor this afternoon. Hopefully it'll be a speedy report, minimal interrogation, and a quick vote. I hope so. It is a fairly speedy report, so I will not keep it too long. Great. We're not going to go through the 105 pages section by section. I got Nelson says thank you. All right. Thank you all committee for your great work, and we will not have committee tomorrow so that we can do our work on the floor of the house and then maybe get some fresh air and exercise and sunshine if the haze has gone away. Any other questions or comments? Oh, I should tell you that Marcia and I are going to report this bill, so I will get version 4.1 to the house clerk's office in order to make that bill go on its merry way in a timely manner so that we can adjourn and get out of here, so thank you Marcia in advance for helping me with that project. Absolutely. All right. If that is all, Jim your hand is still up, but I'm assuming that that's just from before. Great. All right. See you all on the floor in 40 minutes or so.