 So this is Senate government operations. We're back, we took a little break and just to pre-warn people, the Senate has been having some difficulties with some technology difficulties today. So this morning it happened to committees and during the floor session today it happened, we got kicked offline or off YouTube, I guess that's what it's called. So if that happens, we have to stop what we're doing. Those are our directions and we can chat among ourselves but we really can't do any substantive work until we get back on. And Gail is working really hard to make sure we stay back on. But I just want to warn people that if that happens, that's why it isn't that we're not interested in airing, broadcasting what we're doing but it's technical difficulties on the YouTube end. So with that, we're a little bit late getting started this afternoon but we are going to be looking at, I believe it's JRS-2 is the actual title of it and it, yes, JRH-2 and it is a resolution and it is a resolution that is an official apology from the General Assembly for the General Assembly's actions around the eugenics movement. So with that, I think that what we'll do is start with people we haven't heard from yet. And so I think what I'll do is start with Rich and just so that you know, I took some chair prerogative and did some rewriting of some of the, where as is that came over to us and Gail has, they haven't been discussed by the committee. They're my thoughts, that's all they are after listening to some of the testimony we heard the other day. So Michael has those now and he's kind of looking at them. Gail has also posted them. So they are on our website right now in case anybody wants to see and remember again these are just my thoughts in some cases for simplification and in some cases to elaborate on some of the issues. So with that, Rich, would you like to speak with us? Thank you, Chair White and members of the committee and everyone else in attendance here, colleagues, community members. I don't want to add anything in particular to what's already been stated to the House Committee and by your previous witnesses and documents. I just want to be supportive. I want to affirm the actions proposed by this bill that they'd be carried forward. This has been a long time coming. It is, I see it as a first very serious step toward actually addressing the realities of relationship historically and in the contemporary community here and more will come of it. I have not seen the proposed language changes that you've added, Chair White. I'll look at that when I have an opportunity. But I just want to be here in support at the moment and available if needed. So thank you for the time. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for Rich? I will say that Rich has been very active and instrumental in some of the changes that have happened around the Brattleboro area. And I, sorry, Rich, I keep calling it Brattleboro, but. One toss to gock. Yes. And as a result, we have some new markers down there that acknowledge the original names. And it's been quite impressive what Rich has been able to do in a, I will say very quiet and deliberate way. So thank you. Thank you, Chair White. I want to affirm that this is not my actions. This is on behalf of the community and the work of many, many, many people, both present and who are no longer with us. And you can go as far back as you'd like with that because we are creating the future now and we have a great responsibility. So thank you. Senator Ron. Hi, Rich, it's nice to see you. I was just wondering, I believe you have experience with First Nations apologies as well from the Canadian government or some sort of knowledge of that. I'm just curious, in your perspective, what constitutes a meaningful apology? What elements do you feel like should be present for an apology to feel meaningful and like it lands? That's a great question. I think it's been touched upon in previous testimony and that is that we need to move beyond words to actions. That acknowledgement is a first step. The government in Canada is having trouble with this. It's challenging because it's hard work to move beyond a single action, recognize the system that it resides within and how that's all connected and how it's not simply an action taken in the past but that it has effect today and into the future. And so it's a really big topic, but I think the essence of that is that words need to be followed by meaningful action and within that recognition it's really, really important that native voice is before-fronted, that direction and prioritization be informed by that community because those actions are on their behalf. And by extension on everyone's behalf because we are all here now and we need to figure this out. So make sure that you're including the appropriate parties and make sure that it's followed through. That's the essence there. And that's not easy. It's not easy at all. Thank you. Thank you. I'm gonna go to Susan. Susan, there you are. Hi, good afternoon, Chair White and committee. I think this is my first time testifying for this committee and so I would just like to give you a little bit of background for the record. My name is Susan Aronoff. I am the senior planner and policy analyst for something called the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council. I don't think most of you know what the council is so I'm just gonna give you a little background on that. So all 50 states have a council. We were created under a civil rights act, the developmental, the DD Act, federal law and we are entirely federally funded. In order to receive those federal funds, all the states and territories have to agree to certain assurances. And one of those assurances is basically to house and feed us. So we reside in the agency of human services. I am a state employee, but another one of those assurances is that the agency of human services has to include us in their quality efforts to improve services or anything that impacts the lives of people with disabilities we're supposed to be in on. And the most important assurance that I just wanna let you guys know about today is that the agency of human services has to assure that they will not interfere with our advocacy efforts. And so because of that, I get to testify before you today as a state employee and my opinions are those of the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council and not the agency of human services. I just need to make that clear before I speak to every committee. Thank you for your indulgence in that. So what exactly does the federal government fund the Developmental Disabilities Council to do? We are funded and our mission is to empower the voice of people with developmental disabilities and their family members and make sure that their voice, and so we are a council that is a majority, made up of majority of people with disabilities and their family members. And we are supposed to be the council staff, I'm a staff member, are supposed to work, we have a five year plan to assure that our council members and people with disabilities in general have access to influence all of the services and programs and activities that impact their lives. So where they live, work, learn, play, get their healthcare, get their education, any systems, special education rules, anything like that, that's gonna impact their lives. We work very hard to make sure that their voice is heard and can be, they can participate in that dialogue. And so normally at this point, I would turn this mic that I have, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify over to one of our council members or someone with a disability or family member or someone with a disability so that they could share their lived experience. Because time was so short this session, I'm sad to state that so far I'm the only voice on the Senate side for the disability community. I'm proud to be happy that I have this job where I can be that voice. But I really think the voice of the people with disabilities needs to be heard. And so I sent you today committee members and maybe Gail can post it. A link to some of the testimony the house took from people from Green Mountain Self Advocates, Max Barrows and Susan Ashcroft-Eastcroft. Susan herself was a resident at the Brandon Training School. Max and Susan are both Vermonters with disabilities and they're very active with Green Mountain Self Advocates. Our council works really closely with Green Mountain Self Advocates. And I would encourage you to listen to their testimony. There was also testimony from the house from some of our council members and I meant to send a link to that and I will after this Zoom. I also share with you the council's platform and some information that we sent out about just the lives of Vermonters with developmental disabilities. Perhaps the most important thing I shared with you and this is really the through line to why this apology matters and why it matters a lot and why it matters a lot right now. The report I sent you is about the health disparities of Vermonters with disabilities, not just developmental disabilities, all disabilities. This was work done by our Department of Health that I in my humble opinion has not received enough attention or airtime under the dome, virtual or otherwise. If you look at just the executive summary of that report on the health of Vermonters with disabilities, you will see that Vermonters with disabilities have rates of chronic conditions two or three times the rate of Vermonters without disabilities. And it's not because there's anything about having downsism or autism that would lead to heart disease, diabetes or cancer. It's because the same attitudes that led to eugenics are alive and well now. And we have seen that with COVID, we have seen the disparities with people of color, with indigenous people, with poor people, with GLBT people. And our great health department long before COVID did work where they looked at the health disparities in Vermont through an equity lens. And they looked at the health disparities of Vermonters of color, LGBTQ Vermonters, low-income Vermonters and Vermonters with disabilities. And I don't wanna get into the competition of who's got it harder. I do wanna say that Vermonters with disabilities are the largest group of people who experience health disparities in the state and that the health disparity issues that Vermonters with disabilities experience can be alleviated by just if people just follow the Americans with Disabilities Act sometimes and allow the act of basic physical access to healthcare, communication access to healthcare, et cetera. So anyway, the reason why your passage, your work on this really matters to the council why it's our number one platform issue is because Vermonters with developmental disabilities in particular were so impacted by Brandon and by the threat of Brandon. And we had amazing testimony in the house last session from one of our council members who though she'd been coming to the state house for more than 25 years was her first time testifying and she talked about how she was encouraged to place her daughter at Brandon in the house. She worked very hard for the closing of Brandon and I don't think I could overstate the importance of this issue and this apology to Vermonters with disabilities. The legislature did some great work over the years cleaning up the language and the statutes getting rid of the R word and things like that. If you have a chance to see Chair Stevens house speech on why it's important the legislature own their actions and the impact, please do so. But this is a rare thing where the legislature is taking responsibility, accountability for its own actions and it is super important. I wanna echo what Rich said about what would make this apology more meaningful would be some follow-up actions and we know that the house has a bill, a companion bill, it's not gonna get out this session to do just that, set up some kind of reconciliation process so that the people who were impacted by this horrible chapter in our history can be heard and we can figure out some way to address these ongoing injuries, including health disparities. H210, the health disparities bill, S16, the school exclusion bill or school equitable bill, all great ways to address some of these legacies but these are the legacies. The school to prison pipeline for students of color, indigenous students, students with disabilities and the health disparities. That's the legacy of eugenics. That has to get stopped now. So I really encourage you to pass this and please, please don't let the perfect as they say be the enemy of the good. I participated last year and this year in the discussions on the house. I think they worked in good faith and earnestly to come up with a really good statement and time is short. So if you could get it out this session would really be great. And I'm available to answer any questions and thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I know your time is short. Thank you, Susan. And our intention is to get it out with or without changes. We have some suggested changes but and we even have suggested changes to the suggested changes. So I've just emailed Michael another thing that we talked about in committee the other day. I do wanna say I did have the opportunity to see some of Max's testimony and it was pretty riveting. I also wanna say and Senator Polina will remember this because I believe he was the prime sponsor of the bill that on respectful language and Max was one of the people that worked really hard with us on developing that and getting it right. So I wanted to acknowledge Max for that work. Any questions for Susan? Yes, Senator Rom. Thanks, Susan. I was just wondering health disparities can be kind of broad topic. And when I think of the impact of eugenics on people with disabilities, it is also kind of a weighty topic. I wonder if there are specific impacts that you think are important to call out such as the impact on reproductive health for women with disabilities. What sort of stigmas do you think have built up or who would you center in that conversation around health disparities for people with disabilities based on the legacy of eugenics? Yeah, thank you for that question. So I would say that women, particularly women of childbearing age were particularly impacted but in the past, but I think that presently one of the areas that the Green Mountain self advocates have been really active in is trying to get age and language inclusive sexuality education information and informed consent information, things like that into plain language. But there is still a strong presumption against people with disabilities being able to be parents. And the state is not as active now as it used to be when some of the institutions were once state hospitals open. I will say I used to be a staff attorney for disability rights, Vermont, now known as Vermont protection, I mean, when I worked there as Vermont protection advocacy. And one of the things that my clients experienced a lot then and these were adults with psychiatric disabilities not necessarily developmental disabilities, but they were also greatly impacted by eugenics was if someone became, if someone was pregnant or delivered a child while they were at the Waterbury State Hospital, that child was removed and presumed to be a child in need of care and supervision and that parent was presumed not to be capable of being a parent. If a parent, if someone had children and they voluntarily sought mental health care, whether in a state facility or just at, you know, Rattle Bar Retreat, one of the constant chronic worries that would exist today is that the parent admits to fear of self harm, anything. There's a huge worry that a petition will be filed for some sort of state intervention and who's gonna take care of their kids. And so a lot of parents, women in particular, seek, do not seek or delay seeking treatment because they fear that the need of treatment will be used against them in parenting, whether by the state, by a spouse, by an ex-spouse, et cetera. So there's still a real stigma for people with disabilities in the area of parenting. I think there's also just a real stigma in the medical profession for people with disabilities time and time again, whether it's someone with Down syndrome, someone who communicates through a facilitated communication device or someone who just maybe has cerebral palsy and has difficulty speaking. The medical professionals talk to the person with them. That could be a direct support provider, that could be a parent or spouse, whatever. They don't talk to the patient, to the person. They assume that because they have some sort of communication challenge that they have an intellectual challenge, that they're not able to understand or consent to their care and treatment. The basic access issues, and this we think is that the through line of do people with disabilities lives matter? Our service is going to be available for people with disabilities. One of the things that we hear from parents and hear from people who use wheelchairs is basic access to something like getting weighed is still really difficult in a run. And there are parents who describe how they never had their kid weighed out of their wheelchair, even though weight gain for wheelchair users is really difficult. And the recommendation was literally to go to the vet's office because they have floor mounted scales. But just basic access, we have a council member who because she uses a wheelchair that and requires a Hoyer lift, a device in order to use the bathroom, she had to be catheterized to give a urine sample because her local medical clinic did not have a bathroom that was accessible for her to give a urine sample without undergoing that invasive and unnecessary medical procedure. So I think that I think I really thank you for that question because I think there are so many ways that the like that the attitudes that led to eugenics that were kind of about whose lives were important and mattered and what's the value of a life of someone who has a physical or intellectual disability continue today. I really hate to say that, but the evidence is pretty clear. Yeah. I appreciate that answer greatly. And it is a good reminder, particularly around parenting that Vermont is highest per capita in its disruption of families and removal of children from the parent. If I may say one other thing about parenting, we had a really successive program in the state and there's a woman involved in the one of the standing committees at Dale, Susan Yuan who will talk very extensively about the success of this program that provided where it was a Medicaid funded program that provided support to parents with disabilities to help them parent. Thank you. Senator Plano. I got it. I just, I'm not really a question, but I appreciate the fact that you brought up Brandon Training School because we talk a lot about the Waterbury State Hospital and whatnot. I just, I don't think, I just wonder what the connections are between with Brandon Training School in terms of timeframes and what went on there. I just, I mean, I don't, if you have anything to add, that'd be great, but I just, we hadn't really heard much about Brandon Training School in this conversation. So I appreciate you bringing it up. So one of the things to know about the Brandon Training Schools, I'm not going to remember the exact name, but it was really horrible name. Feeble imbeciles and feeble-minded children, something dreadful like that. And it, you know, one of the things about all of these institutions, the Vermont, the Waterbury State Hospital included Brandon Training School, is sometimes they were thought of as the mark of a kind and just society, a benevolent society. We're looked at, we're measured by how well do we take care of our least disadvantaged, most disadvantaged, as our governor likes to say, most vulnerable citizens, people who cannot provide for their own food, clothing and shelter. And so states moved from progressive states. It was seen as a progressive thing, to move away from under-seers of the poor to these state-funded institutions where people could be guaranteed to have food, clothing and shelter and have their other basic needs met. And these institutions weren't necessarily started as negative things. That's the thing about eugenics. It was like the hallmark of progressive social work at the time. It's crazy to think about now, but that's how far we've come. And so one of the things about Brandon and one of the reasons why what we call consent to sterilization can be so murky is that it was often a condition of leaving Brandon that people would be sterilized. And so think about that devil's bargain. Would you call that consent? You can have your freedom or you could have children, but you can't have both. And so people would quote unquote consent to be sterilized in order to be discarded or released from Brandon. And then we understand that some people were sterilized while they were at Brandon. Another thing they did to Senator Ram's question, ways in which women were sometimes and young women were sometimes disproportionately impacted by sterilization laws was as in their own protection because they're likely to be exploited so we don't want them to get pregnant. So they're likely to be assaulted, raped, whatever, but to make sure that there won't be offspring they'll be sterilized for their own good or their family's own good. So they don't bear the expense or whatever of a child. And that was often how it was presented both to the relatives, parents of minors and parents of adults. This is forever, you know, this is in people's best interests. Yeah, I'm gonna take any more. I do. One last thing about Brandon, I do wanna say, Vermont sometimes likes to say we were the first to pose our state institution for the developmentally disabled. And we were not the first, we were probably within the top five, but we can be very proud of the fact that we do not currently have an institution for people with developmental disabilities. We do send a number of children out of state to other state's institutions and that's something we should be concerned about, but we do not currently have an institution in this state. Senator Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Susan, I just wanna thank you for many of the points that you made. I was not in the committee the last time we took this resolution up. So I didn't hear a lot of a testimony, but I think it's so important the point you made about how noble at one time we thought many of these measures were, we had the General Assembly involved. We had the University of Vermont involved with the state agencies involved who all thought that they were doing the right thing. And it's only obviously looking back, we realized how awful it was. And I just wanted to thank you for making that point. Any other committee comments, questions? We normally don't do this, but I did see that Rich, you wanted to make a comment and I will let you and then we'll go on to Carol. I apologize. I just wanted, I'm not sure if it's mentioned previously and I cannot offer any specifics, but we need to keep the weak school Vermont Industrial School in mind here as well. And we did, I will say that we've had this conversation in the committee about whether we should try to name institutions and perhaps neglect some that should be named or if we should just be more generic and talk about the state sponsored institutions. So we will have that discussion as committee members of which direction to go, but know that we all know that there were state, were and probably are still some state sponsored institutions that need to be addressed. So with that, I'm gonna go to Carol Irons and I see that you do not have a snowstorm today so you can make it to the committee. And I also wanna comment on your beautiful cap that put you out of the picture for a little while. Yeah, she really likes affection. So we're captive audiences at this point. We didn't get snow today. So hi everybody, I'm Carol McGranahan and Carol Irons has joined me. So I'll give her the mic. Yep, thank you. Thank you, Chair White. Thank you for the committee people for listening to this. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. I wanna put the Eugenics program in a little bit of a deeper context because the way I look at it and the way most of the Abeneke people look at it is that it was more perhaps a peak experience, a culmination of a very long history and it cast a very long shadow and we still live with some of the residual attitudes that brought that whole program about. The Abeneke people do not have a migration story. We were here from the beginning times and we don't talk about coming from somewhere else. We have creation stories, not migration stories. And yet, fairly recently in the, I think the latter part of the 20th century, someone heard a long migration story, put it in a book and said this was the Abeneke origin story. It's actually the Mohawk people's migration story. This is an example of the kind of thing we live with even now. There's a lot of things in the books that were not put in there by our people because we weren't writing the books and it creates a lot of misunderstanding that carries through how people look at us and what they think about the first people here in this landscape. Our people have an Algonquian language root. It's very ancient. There are many people on Turtle Island, on this continent that come out of that, but not all people. The Algonquian language root has an old word that is Wabanaki. Waban is the word for first light or dawn. And Aki is the word for earth or land. So this is the dawn land or the land of first light. This is the far northeastern part of this continent of Turtle Island. And that's why we have the name Abeneke as one of the groups of the Wabanaki people. When people came from across the Great Water for the last 500 years, because we've been here for far more than 10,000 years, but in the last 500 years, we've found ourselves overwhelmed with a people that came with a very different cultural framework and that cultural perception influenced how they looked at the indigenous people they encountered here. It was a very different value system. It was a very different way of looking at things and therefore of understanding the people who lived here. And we continue to live with that now. Many things have been written about us by people who looked at us out of their own cultural perspective. I can give you one example very quickly when early settlers and Jesuits that wrote Jesuit relations reports that the early explorers that wrote reports when they saw a family, a couple, a man and a woman or maybe a small group and they saw people moving along the trail, they saw that the men walked in front of the women out of their own cultural background. This gave them the interpretation that the men were superior. They were leading the way the women were subservient and secondary in their culture and that's the way they understood it. In the indigenous point of view, the women walked behind because the unborn offspring of the people was the future of the people. The only way you could protect went on the trail when moving. The only way you could protect the future of your people was to have the man in front and the woman behind and that unborn future, those who would come behind us later on had to be in between in the woman's womb. So it was seen as an honoring and a respect for the life-bearing role of the woman in the culture. Totally misunderstood by people from another land that saw that as a sign of subservience, which of course in the colonial records, women were part of the property, just like the horses and the barn and whatever. That kind of cultural perspective, the value system that goes along with that is what we're living with now and it carried over to all our people, not just the women, but it was those kind of value systems that ended up with people thinking those who are indigenous are inferior and we need to keep them from breeding because we need to improve the breeding stock in Vermont by sterilizing them or taking away their children and civilizing them in foster homes or institutions. So the eugenics who's just carrying to its logical conclusion some of those cultural differences, some of those value differences, we have that even now and it's going to translate into whatever comes of an apology because identity is so impacted by this. When I tried to find out about our heritage from my aunt, she said, oh no, she said first they find out all about you, then they come for you. This was in the 1990s and she was unwilling to share with us the specifics that she knew of what had happened when she was a young woman. She was an adult woman at the time in the 1930s teaching school but she wasn't going to tell us about our background for fear that shadow would again rear its head. Our needs now have to do with restoring enough of our cultural identity to help our children and those who come behind us to be able to know who they are in a good and positive way and not have to hide. I would urge this committee to be very careful who you listen to because we've been here for more than 10,000 years and yet we continue to have people define who we are and what we need according to how it will serve their agendas of being experts and making money off our people. It's a struggle we have even now and it comes right out of the same stream of cultural values and attitudes that we've struggled with for the last 500 years. And I think the eugenics is just maybe a crack in the egg to kind of help bring out what's been going on undercurrent for a long time. So I really appreciate you being willing to hear about this and looking at it and you need to look at who you listen to or who you don't. The earlier writings by those who were not part of the indigenous culture continued to say that we didn't live here, we only moved through. I was taught that in elementary school. No, the Indians didn't live here. They just traveled through. And this is something that is still being said today by some people who feel they're speaking on behalf of the indigenous people and clarifying some of the historical research. I think if you read the book by Haveland and Powers, the original Vermonters, there's archeological evidence there that's useful to you. I think if you have time this summer when of course you're supposed to be having a lot of free time, right? And I know your committees work right through the summer as I sometimes do. Another book that really might give you a more of a gut sense of what it was like when the two cultures met and clashed was written as written by Annie Prule. It's a novel, Bark Skinners. But the devastation of the forest that occurred across this whole landscape changed even the ability to take care of ourselves as a forest people. And so even though it's a novel, it can kind of put a broader picture on what happened to the whole landscape and to an ability to take care of our people in our own way. We simply lost a lot of that. So we're trying to recover that. We appreciate very much your willingness to hear this and to consider stepping up to it and seeing what can be done now so that we can all move forward in a better way. So I thank you for your time and I'll answer any questions you may have. Thank you, thank you. Just a very small comment here. And it just, when you said that, I don't remember if it was you or if it was Rich that said Waban was meant first light or dawn. I grew up right near an Ojibwe reservation in Northern Minnesota. And there was a town right there called Waban. It just, when you said that, it made me think, right. That was right there. And that was why they named it that. So anyway, any comments or questions? Thank you so much. That was great. And I don't think the committee has any intention of removing the abnaki from the resolution. We haven't had the discussion about the exact language yet and what we intend to do with it. But I don't think that we have any intention of doing that. Just to be clear. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Any questions or comments for Carol and we're glad to see you made it today and that there was no snow up there so you could make it. And you're one of those people that's gonna get last mile broadband, I guess, at some point. At some point. Okay, I think we'll jump to Doug. Doug was meant. Are you with us? Yes, I'm here. Okay. I'm not sure why my picture is not up, but. You might have your video turned off. Is there a little picture of a camera? Are you on a computer? Yeah. There might be a little picture of a camera up there that you can, that has a red line through it. But if you can't find it, that's just fine. We can listen to you just as well. So. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you for being with us. Yeah, well, thank you for having me today. Yeah, my name is Doug Bant. I'm from Braintree, Vermont. I'm a member of the Vermont Commission on Native American Affairs. I'm a spokesperson for the Kawasaka, the Coa's tribe, director of the White Pine Association, which has a 501C3 for the Kawasaka tribe. And so I wanted to, Chief Shirley Hook wanted me to read this letter that she had found when she and her brothers and sister were going through their parents' belongings after they had passed away three years ago. This letter is from the Brandon State School and was sent to her grandfather. The letters dated May 20th, 1932. And the children mentioned in the letter are his sisters, two kids. And she lived in Chelsea, Vermont at the time. And Shirley's grandfather lived in Madawan, New Jersey and was a policeman. And apparently they thought as a police officer he might have some persuasion in getting the kids released. So I'll just redo this letter. It's from Truman J. Allen, MD superintendent, state of Vermont, Brandon State School. Dear Mr. Hook, answering your favor of the 17th reference to Delbert and Rosa Zalba, Ashley, would advise that there is a little question in my mind but that owing to mental retardation and limitation we are all justified in recommending that they have the advantage special study and training here so that we shall be able to define just what their condition may be and advise as to what seems best. A school like this affords an opportunity of careful individual study of such problem school children. The teacher reports that they are deficient in interest and that they don't grasp things quickly. Delbert is a masturbator but this will probably cease after a while. Neither of the children are doing even first grade work. They are rather restless and lack in concentration. It would be inadvisable of course to think of moving them at this time as they are now placed where they can receive the special attention that they need if we expect to help them. I'm glad to report they seem to be in good health and are very happy here. They have not been at all homesick. I am glad to report anytime you wish to write really truly yours Truman J Allen. I think it probably goes without saying they never had children, those two children. And Chief Colon Wood wanted me to share this story with you as well about his family. They lived in Waterbury Center when he was growing up and his mother worked at the Waterbury State Hospital in the 30s and 40s. And he was never told that he was native until his father well was written on his death bed pretty much ready to pass away. And they didn't want their 10 children to know that they were native because they feared that they would be taken from them. And of course the mother working at the hospital knew what was happening at that time. And so those are the two stories I wanted to share with you folks today about. And these are very emotional stories for Colon and Shirley. And that's why they I guess they wanted me to present them to you. Yeah, we thank you for listening to the testimony that everybody has to offer. And we hope that you do act upon this resolution and go forth with the more meaningful concrete things in the future. But we do appreciate this first step. I thank you. Thank you and please thank them for sharing their stories with us also. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. All right, committee, what I'm going to suggest now is that we start actually looking at the language and figuring out where we wanna go so that we can have, I doubt very much that we will finish this today. But we do need to finish it tomorrow. So tomorrow we're going to look at one other bill at one o'clock and then whenever we're done with that we'll continue this because we do need to get this get this passed. Our intention is to pass it this year and to make sure that it makes it over to the other body so that, and we have been in touch with the chair over there, Representative Stevens. So we're trying to keep him abreast of where we might be going here to because we don't wanna put up any roadblocks to this but we wanna, there are a few things we wanted to talk about and get right. So with that committee, I would ask, I guess I, let me ask here how you think is the best way to proceed with this. Michael, yes, Senator Colmar. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I noticed there was one other witness that hasn't testified. I don't know whether you had planned on calling on Judy or not. Well, we heard from Judy last time and also from Carol, other Carol last time. And I wanna make sure that we have time to have the committee discussion. And then what I'll do, I think is as we start going through the, any language is ask for comments from people about the actual language, if that makes sense. Yeah, thank you. Okay, thanks. Judy, I didn't mean to shut you off but we do need to get to the actual language here and what we might be doing and we will ask people for their comments on the language. So I don't know, committee, if you have, Michael, have you done any magic for us or should we work with the, what I sent you? At this point, again, for the record, Michael Churnick, Legislative Council, good afternoon. At this point, I've just been reading through what you have a couple of places where there were some date typos that I've noted that need to be corrected. And also trying to figure out to be certain where you wanted me to eliminate clauses. I think I have it correct. I haven't had a chance yet because I've been focusing on listening to the testimony to actually sit down and type other than the couple of emails that I sent you for clarification points and questions. So as you go through each, I would also appreciate your going through what the house passed and confirming for me, for example, in certain cases, that indeed you do want to strike a clause entirely as opposed to modifying it so that I know that I have it correctly. Okay, so what I'm going to do is I'm going to go on our committee website. And now- And I do have the email from you, so. Wow. I do have the email, Madam Chair. Right. You sent me with the language and I'm just comparing it against the house version. And there are a couple of places where I think you've stricken a clause, but I just wanted to make sure that's what you intended to do. Yep, so, Gail, did you print, did you post what I sent, the email I sent you? I don't see it there. Yes, I did, Madam Chair. Refresh your screen, it's under your name. Okay, there it is. Okay. So let's just because it's here, can we start with this possible language? Committee? Sure. I think that's a good next step is to look at your work versus what the house sent us. Well, some of it is exactly the same and some of it I just thought needed clarification. And so the first one is I wrote was whereas since 1906, laws, policies and procedures have been enacted to promote the eugenics movement and possibly just taking off then with the motto, breed better men. But I wanted to, after we heard the testimony, wanted to make it clear that this didn't start in 1922 or 1912, it was a movement before that. So that was my intent there. Yes, Senator Collomer. I fully support leaving that clause in precisely for the reasons that Susan mentioned. Yeah, I think it's very, very good idea to leave that free situation in there. Leave the whole thing in about breed better men. Yeah. Okay. Any other committee members have any comment on that? Just that statement? Senator White, if I may ask, could I have the source of where that phrase came from? It was in, we heard it from testimony that that was kind of the, I think Judy was the one that talked about the motto that had been given. I don't know where it came from. If it was just kind of generally known that that was the, Judy, do you have a know where that actually came from? Or was it just kind of the motto of the eugenics movement? It was the motto, it's in lots of sources. I can't just give you one right now. But I could look up for one if you would like and let you know. Yeah, I don't know that we need to have a source. Ideally, we would like to be able to fact check it in the ideal. Tonya, I think maybe, was it in some of Tonya's material? It's a common phrase. Yeah. No, I don't think it was in Tonya's material, but it may have been. Nancy Gallagher spoke her. No. If you could, Judy, if you can just find one source where it's so that Michael feels he needs to be very truthful about what we put in here. And I respect that a lot. So if you can just come up with one source and I'll also send a note to Tonya and ask her. I'm confused. Why are you asking to be truthful about this and not about the fact that the word of Benike is not in the records? I'm asking us to be truthful about what we're writing. That's what I'm talking about. The word of Benike is not in the eugenics records, but you said you will not take it out. Right. So I'm confused by that. Why do you want to justify one but not the other? I think that what we have heard from other people, including our archivist and other people who have looked at the record, well, that the records are not complete and that a source that, well, our pro tem did a lot of research as her, I believe it was her master's thesis on this error issue. And she found that the records are not totally complete and that the Abenaki in fact is, should be mentioned in here. No, the records are complete. The one box that's missing is Perkin's personal letters. Okay. Well, I don't know that we're going to argue about this. I think our committee feels strongly that this should be left in. And we've heard from a number of people that it needs to be left in. We heard from Carol Rich today, Doug. And we've heard from other people also that it is. But the house heard from four historians and they all said it's not in the records. Well, but they put it in. So they did have Abenaki in there in their resolution. Right, I understand that. Okay. I don't want to get into an argument here about this. I believe that, can I ask the committee members if we have any intention of removing the word Abenaki or leaving it in? Senator Clarkson. My understanding, Judy, is that we're trying to be inclusive of all the bands and of what all may be under the umbrella of Abenaki and that that was as inclusive a term as the other groups that are identified. And so our understanding is that this includes and Vermont recognizes the Abenaki and that it is an umbrella for many of the bands that were included in the eugenics movement. You're not being inclusive though. That's the point I'm trying to make. If you go back to the original recognition bill, it says we recognize there's 1700 indigenous people living in this state and to recognize the Abenaki excludes the others who are in those records. That's the point I've been trying to make. So we did say we do have mixed ethnicity and indigenous. Right, but the indigenous people who are listed in the records are listed as mixed ethnicities. Okay, I'm going to take us off this topic and go to the second point here. But I want to ask if people are comfortable with the first one and I will get some reference from Tanya Marshall for Michael. Okay, I just found it in Scientific American. There's an editorial called The Breeding of Better Men. But it is a kind of common phrase used in articles of that day. So I don't know. Can you send that to Michael? Thank you. All right, I'm going to move to the second comment here that we had and where is the movement targeted for elimination delinquent defective and dependent people? That should just be dependent. And one of the specific laws enacted at the federal level which was the marriage restriction law of 1929 that and I couldn't remember it restricted mixed ethnic marriages. But I couldn't remember if it did anything else. Does anybody remember? Because I just put that. I think that it restricted people from, it was quite complicated actually. It restricted people from getting married and having marriage licenses and yet marriage licenses were used to prove who you were. And so if we want to put that in we should have a short explanation of what it was. If we don't want to put it in, that's fine. Committee? Let's keep it and let's find the source. Well, I don't, it isn't the source that I'm worried about. It is just like a one sentence explanation of what it did. Right. And I looked it up and I couldn't find anything specific about it. I could only find about interracial marriages. So, okay, we'll work on that one a little more. You could only just end it after 1929. You could just say. Okay. One of the specific laws enacted at the federal level was the marriage restriction law of 1929. Yeah, could do that. That marriage was restricted somehow. So, and then I have the night in 1922 the Vermont General Assembly passed S79 an act to authorize and provide for the sterilization of imbeciles, feeble-minded and insane persons. Rapists confirmed criminals and other defectives which was vetoed for fear of its unconstitutionality. And Michael had that in his thing but I found it a little bit hard to follow because of the way it was written. But, and he also tells me it's 1912. Not 1922 committee. Do we want to make reference which governor vetoed it? I don't care if we do or not. Okay. That's up to you whether you want to put it in. It's more real. Okay. Okay. Michael, can you do that? You're muted. And I don't remember which governor it was offhand but Mead, no, Weeks, Weeks. Weeks, I thought of that. And was he the same one of the Week School? Week School was named after him, yes. Great. He was afraid that this would be unconstitutional and then he founded the Week School. Good guy. Okay. Sorry about that. All right. But are we okay with that? Yes. I think so. Matt. Yes. Just to go back to the restricted marriage in 1929. Actually, all it all it alludes to is a child marriage restraint act unless somebody can point me to something more than restraints around marrying children. It doesn't in fact say as far as I can find that it has anything more than restricting marriage between a minor and an adult. Well, I looked up marriage restriction act of 1929 and it said that it was one of the laws that was enacted to restrict interracial marriage. And I think that we heard from Judy that it was more restrictive than just interracial. It was any mixed marriages of any sort. Or, and I think she also alluded to the fact that it restricted marriages between mentally ill people or people who were considered defective. Am I right about that, Judy? Yes. Up until 1950, it was illegal to marry a Native American but legal to marry an African American or someone of Asian descent. And was it, did it also have some restrictions around marrying the people that they considered at that point defective or delinquent or dependent? And the fact that being defective, dependent and delinquent was subjective becomes problematic. So marriages were prevented simply because they subjectively determined someone as defective or dependent or delinquent. Right, that's what I remember you saying. That's why I put it in there. But we'll get the exact language for that. All right, and then whereas, and here's the question that we need to address the committee. Whereas state agencies and institutions adopted policies and procedures to carry out the intent of the legislation and the benefits and the beliefs of the eugenics movement. I think that the question is, do we name state agencies or and hope that we get them all or do we just be more generic and refer to state agencies and institutions? And I asked that because I think that Rich brought up the question of we mentioned in the house version it mentions the weeks, the Brandon school but it never mentions the week school. And so I fear that if we try to name them we will inevitably leave some out. And so my suggestion was that we just be more generic and say that the state institutions and the state agencies didn't know what we told them to do. They set up their policies and procedures to carry out our legislative intent. I think you might say some or several state, I don't think you need to make it all state agencies. Okay, including? Well, if you include them, then you have to mention it. Right, if you include them, you have to say who they are. Yeah, Kasia? I think the intent, I think I raised this concern and my intent in raising this concern is to highlight that some of those past institutions still make up our human services education and other kind of administrative services. And that to me ties into the later statement that we have to continue to eradicate the legacy of eugenics. So it was more just to try and nod to institutions that frankly still exist that are supposed to serve children and families but carry this legacy with them when they do that. My concern with that is I don't know how we start naming them because they- I wasn't saying to name them. I was trying to sort of say like they were agencies that kind of maintained these, that they were the ones that serve children and families that we have to kind of, I don't know. Let me think for a second. But it was trying not to do a laundry list, which I get, but say that, these institutions live on with the legacy and they serve children and families and they sort of still have the shadow of this legacy. Well, I think I've tried to say that farther on. I think in her last one, we could- And I've changed the last one again. The last one that we're gonna build on remember is we're trying to actually eradicate that legacy. But where you had just, and I don't know how you redraft it, but you had whereas the legacy of the eugenics movement continues to influence. And you could there occasionally- Yeah, I have rewritten that, but I wanna stay, go through these so that we don't- Yeah, and I'm not trying to jump there. I just feel like if you just say some state agencies, I don't think it has as much descriptive power for referencing later on as saying, certain state agencies and institutions that were designed to serve children and families or were human services and, you know- Oh, my guess is it was more than just ones that were designed to serve children and families. My guess is that it was probably our prison system. It was probably our healthcare system that wasn't specifically designed to serve children and families. It was probably our zoning. Yeah, maybe the institutions that carried out social health and planning policy or something, I just, I don't know what value it has to just say some institutions. It doesn't say that. It says- It says- Whereas state agencies and institutions adopted policies and procedures to carry out the intent of the legislation and the beliefs of the eugenics movement. Okay. And I think if we tried to limit it to those that were what we consider kind of the social service agencies that we're not really getting at it because I suspect that there were, I don't know what agencies existed then, but I'm sure that there were agencies that had nothing to do with social service goals and they carried out the same, the same- I actually think keeping it this way, I actually would support this and the additional beef up of your last one. Okay, so let's leave it. State agencies and institutions adopted policies. And then the next one, which says- Madam Chair. Yes. When you were doing, because what I was, when I seemed to be off from it, I was doing some quick research, you were referring to the Child Marriage Restriction Act of 1929 and the one maybe you found another reference than I did, but I looked both through our indexes and online and the only child marriage restriction act of 1929 specifically that I found is in India. Yes, I found that also. Okay. I raised this as it's only to do with building. So maybe- I'm going to ask, I'm going to ask not this moment, but I'm going to ask Judy and Tanya to, if they have more specific information about that and not right at this moment, but to get it to us. Does that make sense? I wanted to alert you to that because I was concerned. Yeah. Thank you. And I- Okay. So where is in 1925? We'll leave that as it is. I suggested just leaving that as it is in the, and the print on this is so small, but that's the one that talks about- Perkins. Henry Perkins. Yeah. Okay. And then whereas state sanctioned policies targeted, targeted the poor mentally ill and disabled and persons of mixed ethnicity. And then, because so I separated these two things. So that one talks about targeting the poor mentally ill and disabled persons of mixed ethnicity. And then the other ones talks about state sanctioned policies, particularly targeted individuals and families who were French, Canadian, Native American, Indian heritage, French, Indian, and Abenaki. And the only thing I did there was add French, Canadian, but I separated those two so that it was clear that individuals, but in this case, whole families were targeted. And we could say individuals, families and communities to make it even clearer that the whole community was targeted. So I'm trying to, I'm just trying to weigh Judy's concern about being fair to the record. I don't know if she would disagree with me so we could see, but I, what I understand from what she's saying, but she may disagree is that, that's just not the way people were identified at the time. But now one might look back and say that those were Abenaki families and is there a way to articulate that they would be presently considered Abenaki even if they weren't identified that way in the record? I don't wanna overcomplicate things, but Judy, am I understanding that correctly? I mean, one would say that if you looked back at history, those were Abenaki families that were impacted, they just wouldn't have been identified personally or in the records that way. No, just the reverse. Okay. So in the records, there were out of 202 families, there were five that were mentioned as mixed racial, colored, black, negro, possibly Indian and French Canadian. And so that's the point that I've been trying to make. Everybody was listed except French Canadians as mixed racial ethnicities. So you could simplify it by saying French Canadian and other mixed ethnicities because everybody was listed as a mixed ethnicity. I wrote down some examples because I got an invitation to appear and I thought the invitation was to appear to speak, but clearly not. And so I put together some of the language so you could see how subjective it was that how people were described because they were all described in a generic mixed racial identity except those that were French Canadian. There was a sincere hatred for French Canadians. So what if we did something like state sanctioned policies particularly targeted individuals and families and communities who were French Canadian and other mixed, whatever the word was to use, mixed racial ethnicity or mixed ethnicity. Or just mixed ethnicity. And then put now seen as Native American Indian heritage French Indian and Abenaki. So that it's clear that, although they weren't identified that way but that's who they were talking about. No, it is not. That's what I've been trying to tell you. When they write their letters to track down the history of their families they're writing to Mohawk reservations. They're not writing to Abenaki reservations. All the letters are to Mohawk reservations Aquisizani, Ganawagi. And so that's why if you put Abenaki in there you're slapping the people in the face who are mixed groups that were identified. But Judy, Abenaki didn't have reservations. So they would have been asking those other tribal groups who then said, no, those are not our people, right? No, they never got an answer back from anybody. Right, but they didn't have a reservation. Rich, could you weigh in here? And Carol. And Carol, yeah. I don't feel as qualified to speak to this to the specificities of the questions about how people are named. I would add an observation that the state of Vermont was not recognizing indigenous people all along. They were written out of the record as a process of erasure, but I can't speak to specificities. And so why would the concept of a people indigenous to the state be introduced at that point when they had been specifically eliminated verbally and legally up till then? But that's all I can say to that. The reason is because they're appearing on death certificates and birth certificates as Indian or French Indian or Mohawk or from Aqua Sosney or from Ghana Wagat. And I don't know where you got that there was no reservations because I have stacks and stacks of letters to those reservations. To abnaki reservations? No, to Mohawk reservations. Right, I wasn't saying that. Well, there was an abenaki reservation. Of course there was Odinac and Wulinac. Well, Odinac was Canadian at the time, wasn't it? So it was Ghana Wagat and they were writing to that. So what did the letters for Odinac say? There was none. There was none. Zero. Okay, I want to hear from Carol. My point. Yes, thank you. I think there seems to be a bit of confusion. I agree with Rich that we were never recognized. I mean, how could Ethan Allen get Vermont recognized if he admitted that there were actually indigenous people native to Vermont? I don't know how many, Vermont did not have any abenaki reservations. We were not able to claim a plot of land as our own. The perpetual myth that the Allens promoted about, nope, they just moved through. It sounds like that myth is perpetuated by others. And I, census reports themselves never even broke out the categories between black and white. You were either black or you were white. If you weren't black, then they put you in under the white category. So again, it's like Rich was mentioning that documentation or lack thereof erases a people. The admission that you're actually existing erases you. If you don't admit we're not, you know, I'm sorry, I get a little emotional, but the abenaki, there's archeological studies, there's field digs, there's evidence that we've been here for thousands of years. So to disappear suddenly in 1600 and then come back in the 1900s, I don't think is really reality. I'm gonna ask Michael if he has a suggestion for how to word this in a way that, because I personally think it's important to acknowledge the three categories there, the Native American Indian, the French Indian and the abenaki. And I think it's important to recognize that. And if they weren't, if the state sanctions at the time just targeted French, Canadian and mixed ethnicity families and individuals and communities, then I think we need to find a way to put that we now know that those mixed ethnicity populations were actually Native American Indians, French Indians and abenaki. Yeah, let me agree. I think for that. I'm afraid I figured out. Being very cautious of not trying to make a policy judgment for the committee, but how would it be if you did French, Canadian which everybody seems to agree on, French, Canadian, if you wanna say French Indian, mixed heritage, other mixed, if you went French, Canadian, Native American Indian, Native American Indian or Native American heritage without specifying a specific ban or tribe, French, Indian and other mixed heritage. Thereby recognizing Native American but not saying whether it's Mohawk or a Galquean or abenaki. Just keep checking. Exactly. You will make, am I on? You will make a lot of the abenaki community very upset because we all know that we're abenaki and we knew it then, but we had to hide so as not to have our children taken away or be sterilized. So if we didn't put it in the record that we were abenaki, most of us put in our birth records that we were white, our parents did and this was part of what the eugenics was all about was hiding our identity, but it doesn't in the identity isn't there. Okay, Carol, I don't think that's the end. I think the largest family, 623 people who were sterilized in the eugenics records and my family was one of the five identified as Indian. Well, I'm going to say here that I personally and I want to hear from the rest of the committee. I personally think it is important to leave the term abenaki in. I agree. In some capacity and we need to find the right way to do it, but yes. And I will, and so I want to hear from the rest of the committee. Senator Collamore. I agree. Senator Rom. Well, first, I just want to say in the midst of all of that, Judy said something that's really hard to say in public, which is that your family was deeply affected by this. And I understand that that's, you know, a big part of a huge part of why you want to get this right. I, Judy, you've sent me pieces before about how Iroquois tried to make land claims in Vermont, how other federally recognized tribes have tried to claim part of this as their territory. And it is abenaki territory. These are the original inhabitants of the land. So, you know, if people who were identified as French Indian mixed ethnicity, you know, likely had indigenous blood were, you know, included in those sterilized, then to me that would still say that in present day we would identify those people as abenaki. So, I'm still missing the concern that you're trying to express, Judy, in that it doesn't seem like there's another tribe that would supersede them in that we should name. I know, finding the right word has been difficult, but if you use the term French Indian, you're describing every family in the records identified as Indian. But people might want to have a different, people in those records who were French Indian might want to identify differently now and they might want to be righted in some way, that they were abenaki and they, maybe their ancestors didn't want to say that, but they do now. Exactly, and some of them identify as Mohawk. So, can we say abenaki and Mohawk? No, that's why you've got to get, you know, there could be other groups too, but you've got to be able to say it generically. And what Mr. Turnick said was exactly right. He had it exactly right. I guess I would say, you know, I know the chair wants to move along and Judy, with deep, deep respect for you, I have to listen to other people who want to be identified as the first nation's people of Vermont and be recognized. I understand that, but today, today we still have Mohican recognized as living in this state. When you look at the maps of territory, the whole Rutland area is Mohican. This is not a state of entire abenaki people. So, maybe we could say including abenaki people because those are the people who've really come forward to seek this apology, who are our first nation's people. We could do that. And so, I have Michael's language and then say, including abenaki. I don't know why I'm confused by why you're paying attention to such historical details, but you're not paying attention to the fact that the in these records identified as Fentanyia. That does not mean they're abenaki. I think that they're what, I think that Carol's statement was very compelling when she said that they were, but they didn't refuse to identify themselves because they were afraid that they would be targeted. So- Nobody did. Well, I know, but so we could, we could list all the bands and all the, everybody who, I think also this resolution is speaking to the living. It's speaking to the people who now identify as abenaki it is speaking to the living. It's not, we're trying to move forward. And so I think you want to stay current with how people identify now, as opposed to how they were forced to identify 75, 80, 90 years ago. Senator Polina. I also think that the resolution is speaking to other Vermonters who are not native Americans and Vermonters reading this a day, they relate to our native people as abenaki, whether we like it or not. I mean, that's what people recognize. And I think that it only makes sense to, if you want Vermonters to be sympathetic and supportive of the resolution, to use language that they can relate to and abenaki is the word that Vermonters relate to when they think about their native people. That's very interesting, yeah. Yeah, I think that's good too. Well, I'm going to ask Michael to come up with his magic language. There's one other thought I had, but I again, could be off base, which is, Judy, if I'm correct, and again, I could be absolutely wrong, but the groups that might have some claim or some heritage on the land that is now Vermont are all part of the abenaki Confederacy, isn't that right? The Mohegan, the Penobscot, the Pasamaquati, so. No, they're not. Okay, so which Confederacy? Which Confederacy? Well, I have an employee that sits across from me every day. Who's Moa? Who's in the record? Every day I sit across her and she keeps talking to me, like, why is this a problem? Why can't they understand there were others here? So then what Confederacy are the Mohawk are part of? The Iroquois. So you sent me a life article that said we, you know, we rejected an Iroquois land claim in Vermont because they were not the First Nations people on this side of Lake Champlain. I didn't send you that. You sent me a life magazine article about the Iroquois land claim. So Jim Peterson explored the possibility of Missiscoe as an Iroquoian settlement. And it was a project. Was it that, the article? Well, it was a life magazine piece about Vermont being subsumed into the Iroquois Confederacy and how that was fought. And what I recall is that that was important, that this be recognized as the Wabanaki Confederacy's first land. So Mohegan, Mohegan are alive and part of the corner of the state. If you look at the maps, they have a tribal historian in an office in Williams, Massachusetts, that takes the remains that are found archeologically. And they were moved, became the Stockbridge Muncie Band of the Mohegan. They still occupy that land as the, and I keep going back to recognition, the recognition bill says, we recognize there's at least 1700 indigenous people living in the state. And the reason they did that is because they didn't identify them all as the Wabanaki. So I think that Sarah Polina had a really good point here and that if we have this language and we say, including abnaki, that it acknowledges that there are others but it includes them. And it also speaks to, and there's a lot of people out there who are going to be paying attention to this and reading this. And not only out there, but there are 30 senators that we have to have vote on this. And if my belief is that if we leave out the term abnaki, that it will be questioned about why we did because that is how most Vermonters view the First Nation people. I just, I think Senator Polina's point was well taken and I will, I'm going to move on and I'm going to ask Michael to work his magic and come up with some language here that we can look at tomorrow. And that I think that you had a good start and then if you say, including abnaki. Rich? If I could make one more comment or I have a question for Judy. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from and I think I do, I understand that the word abnaki is not mentioned in the documents for which the apology proposes to address. I get that. You just stated that your family and I'm sorry for this news and this reality was implicated deeply in this process but you identify as French Indian and you identify as abnaki. I'm trying to reconcile that. As I am with you, Rich, what do you identify as your tribal ancestry? Mi'kma. There you go. That's my point. There are other people in this state from other tribes that are not abnaki. That's my point exactly. Understood. I think we should include everyone who was targeted for this. So do I. We should also recognize and admit at this point in time that those people are called abnaki for the most part. I'm not sure I agree with that. There are a lot of people in this state that do not self-identify as abnaki, who are abnaki. But there are people who self-identify as abnaki and both are made. I'm actually going to... We can have more of this conversation tomorrow when we see... And I hope you all join us tomorrow when we see Michael's magic terms for us but I'm going to ask us to move on now with the resolution and when Michael comes up with his magic language. I hope you all are with us and we can talk about it then. Does that make sense? Yes. Thank you. All right, so whereas in 1927, whatever that one is, I suggested leaving all the rest of them as they are until the very last one. And what I wrote is... And the legacy of the eugenics movement continues to even to influence some of our current policies. I would take out even some of our current policies and legislation and we will continue to work to eradicate the legacy of the actions by listening to and working with the affected communities. That was my suggestion. I like that. I think that's a good suggestion. I mean, I didn't have that in there by listening to and working with the affected communities necessarily until Rich said that that was really important in going forward. Oh, I think... Madam Chair. Yeah. Madam Chair, if I may, on that last clause, would you consider taking that last piece that you sent me in the second email as a second result? That makes sense. It just might make it for a very... If you put the two of them together, it's looking to be a very long resolved clause. Sure. And just splitting it down the middle, keeping it all, but splitting it. Yep. And then if you don't like it tomorrow, you can change it again, obviously. Okay, no, that sounds good. So, Committee, do we have some general agreement about where we're going in some of the language here? And I think the only unresolved issue is how we have the language in that second one about targeting families, individuals, and communities. And the marriage restriction. Yeah. Yeah. Clean up. And we can look at that. I'll ask Tonya for some language. And if we can't, I mean, we can take that out. It wasn't in the original one. It was another indicator that there were policies and laws that were continuing to work in that direction and eliminate, eradicate people. But other than that, I'm, are we anywhere near? Yeah. And I will also send this to Tom Stevens. They're still on the floor. Yeah. But I'll send it to him and he, he did comment. I read the committee, his comments. He was okay with all of them. He didn't, he was okay with the 1906 one. But he said it had nothing to do with our apology, but I thought it helped lay the groundwork that this was happening before we ever did the eugenics survey. Great. Keisha. I just want to say, you know, for any of the folks from tribal communities who are on or anybody listening, you know, if, if there are Mohegan folks, you know, or others who just want to be heard in this process, I'd be happy to listen. I know we're on a short timeline. I know that people don't follow every state legislatures, indigenous and Indian affairs legislation, but you know, it's been out there for all session. It's, we've had this conversation over many years. And I personally have not had outreach from people from other federally recognized tribes who've asked for this apology to be included. If I'm wrong about that and others have wanted to be heard, I think, you know, it's appropriate to try and have communication from them. But I would just say we have been doing this for a long time and we haven't had any federally recognized tribes communicate to us that I'm aware of. I have not heard from any, anyone. I don't know if other committee members have. Nope. Nope. All right. So committee. Thank you. And I, I, I have to say, I really appreciate Carol and Carol and Judy and rich and Brent and dining Doug and everybody who's talked to us and been very forthcoming because these are hard conversations and I think we all acknowledge the, and Susan, I think we all acknowledge the, the hurt that was perpetrated and that continues. And so I, I really appreciate your willingness to, to talk with us. And I think the entire committee feels that way. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Michael. Madam chair, if I may keep you for just one more second, I've been scribbling. I was just wondering, so I don't go down on the wrong path tonight. How it just specifically, how would it sound if I wrote makes native American tribes, multiple, I'm sorry, not mixed. I'm sorry. Multiple native American tribes and bands, including the abenac is a compromise. Why don't we look at it, Michael, and why don't you send that to all of us and, and let's look at it and. Off-handed sounds good and can we'll say, if you can send that to Gail. Also, then she, she can also send it to Carol and Carol and Judy and rich and Susan and. I'll send that my thoughts on that clause to all of you in an email. I'll send it to you. I'll send it to Senator White and to Gail. And then all of you can distribute it further. Okay, great. And can send me feedback. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Madam chair. Thank you. This is a. Very important issue and I appreciate everybody's. Willingness to. To participate in it and just know that when there are disagreements. They are not personal at all. We are just trying to. To get it. Right for most people. I think that that's. So. It's, it's a hard topic to wrap our heads around and. And knowing that we still are. In many ways. Suffering the, the, the legacy. Of that whole movement and our complicity in it. And I think that's a great question. Madam chair. Yeah. Well, I just wanted to say, I mean, self-identification is such a challenging thing. People with disabilities were not called people with disabilities at the time in the records. They were called very. Terrible things that I don't think came from their self-determination and. You know, people might have different feelings at this point about. The names that feel most. And I think that's a great question. I just wanted to honor that while recognizing that this is, this is a living process and that, you know, descendants and human beings and people who are impacted are involved too. Just have different ways of identifying and, you know. Most people didn't get to be part of how they were identified in the record. And I think that's just an important thing to weigh in this conversation. Thank you. Judy, did you. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. When you're fine tuning those words. And you have brought. Also known as today, the ebony key to the future. Nothing else has been brought to the future. And as I said in the house and I said. To you folks. This is continuing. Today. Everything is past tense in this thing. It's all around us. I think that's our chairs. Last. Whereas or first resolve. I think that's the language that Jeanette was trying to get at. Is that we understand and we are committing with this resolution. To, to heighten our awareness and. And we're resolving to do, to do. To do better. And go forward. Not continuing to, to. So you're not acknowledging the programs in the 60s and the programs in the 80s and 90s. You're not acknowledging any of that. You're just going to do better. Well, I, I think that we. I don't know if we start recognizing. Programs. They, there are programs and then there are policies and there are. I mean, even. Even for example, the. Language that we had in our statutes. That we changed. We had a bill not long ago that. It changed the, what we call the respectful language bill, because it. It. Talked about. In the souls and the feeble minded and. Our language was there and. And so we, we tried to make corrections around that. So I. I don't know that. Where we would. Draw the line as to what. What the legacy is. And I'm trying to think of that there certainly were very specific. Things that resulted. From this legacy. But there are probably things that are. Are not specific. They weren't programs. They weren't acts, but they influence. Are, are thinking. And I think that. Susan alluded to some of those just. Just the way. People treat. People with a disability. If. If you're in a wheelchair, does the, the medical guy talk to you? Or does he talk to the person that's with you? And so. I think that. If we started talking about specific things. Specific things that happened in the 60s and 70s and the 80s. And probably in the 2000s. We would have a list that went on forever. And we was still wouldn't get at those. Kind of. And so I think that. In fact, the thinking that many of us have, and I hope our goal is to. To be able to, when we're looking at. Issues and legislation and policies and procedures. That this is part, becomes part of our thinking. And how we. How we address those things and how we think about them. And how we address those things. And how we address those things. Trying to specify things that continue to happen. Rich. I think to Judy's point. About continuing effects and, and, and side effects. That are, that are. Post eugenics. Survey and through the present. To that point. And the chair's last whereas. Which mentions continuing to influence the house, the house final statement. Final resolved statement. Definitely creates that allowance and that inclusion where it says that the general assembly. Recognizes that further legislative action should be taken. To address the continuing impact. Continuing impact. Of state sanction eugenics policies and. To address those things. To address those related practices of disenfranchisement. Ethnocide and genocide. It's all in there. Yeah. And we left. Until now. Yeah. We left that there. Yeah. Yeah. To Judy's point. This is continuing. It's systemic. And it all needs to be tackled. One step at a time. And, and this is an important piece of awareness. I mean, for many people who. Are working on this movement. And this survey to, you know, Who aren't necessarily even aware of it. Susan. You would. Yeah. I just wanted to note that. And Donahue. Had added some language to the health equity bill. H 210 when it was still in house healthcare committee. To try to bring the through line forward that you're talking about. And I'm going to give you a little bit of a brief introduction. To the health equity bill. And I will look for it and send it to you and Michael. I tried to make the suggestion in the house, but I think. General affairs committee, but I think it was a little late. That you just add something saying that. The health disparities experienced by, that we see today by by Pocke and people with disabilities. Are the direct result or, you know, I mean, there's a really, you know, Michael might ask me for a source from that for that. I apologize, but. And there just really are some obvious through lines. To the conditions. That people find themselves in today and the eugenics movement. We will look at that tomorrow. I, I am a little reluctant. To put something so specific in there because. There are also economic disparities that are clearly linked. To this and land ownership disparities and. All kinds of things that. So I would hate to put in something that just addresses health disparities. When we know that it has impacted. Housing disparities. So. That's fair. And it would make sense that it could go the other way where the health disparities bill could say this flows from eugenics, but you're right. Eugenics has flowed into so many other disparities that to name health would leave out the others. I totally get your current example of a mental health patient at the brow of a retreat who's having a child. And the concerns about being able to keep that child are very present and very 2021. Yeah. Thank you all so much. And thank you for sticking with us on this long afternoon. This is an important topic and we will. I can't tell you exactly what time. Tomorrow I don't know if you there's you have any ability to be flexible. But it will be. Sometime after. 130 I can guarantee you that because I think our other issue will take us at least half an hour. So. For those of you who can join us, Gail will send you an invite and you can. Stand by and we'll. See you whenever. We can see you. Does that make sense? Yeah, I know it doesn't make any sense at all, but no, did you get the idea? Sense given our life. I don't know if this will help. Mr. Turnick, but here's the book. That lists. The laws for Vermont. And who you can marry about the marriage law, who you can marry and who you. I thought we were referring now, then I need a little clarification if I may. I thought that everyone was referring to a federal law, a federal law. And because Senator White wrote a federal law, if you want me to be referring to Vermont law on marriage restrictions, that's easy enough for me to do. I. So I just need some clarity on that because Judy's saying one thing and Senator White saying something totally. No, that was my fault. I thought it was a federal law, but we're saying it was the state law. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, that's easy for me to find. I have those references right here. Okay. I know it went on. This book was written in 1950. So I know it went on quite a while. Now. If I may, if I may ask one more question. If I may. This was a marriage restriction with respect to race. Or with respect to. Well, it talks mostly about. I know there are age restrictions. Yeah, but it talks mostly like. Ms. White said about. The met. The subjectivity that was introduced to specific people. As to whether they were dependent, defective, or delinquent. And that subjectivity. Prevented them from getting a marriage certificate. I can find a citation in that now that you tell me we're dealing with state law, that's totally different thing. And I have those references right here. Okay. Thank you, Judy, because that was all my fault. For some reason I had written down when you were testifying, I had written down federal law. So. Well, what was particularly interesting is that federal law brought up Indian law. So that means that the whole child marriage issues that Michael and I both found all had to, you know, have to go back to the state law. And I think that's what I wanted to say. And I'm going to let off with what was happening in India. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Madam chair. Thank you. Thanks everybody. See you tomorrow at 10. And then one. You bet. Thank you.