 The proposals for you, they both deal with the issue of the plan equivalency. I don't know if Damien has given you those. I will give them on the table. I see, I'm just looking at the nurse requirement, education and outreach. Here's a packet for you. A re-opener. And audit language. This one. The other section is not ready for prime time yet from our perspective. And you don't have, do you have other? So you have two. I have all these. I think Damien put them in little piles. You have two for us, which is Senate proposal requiring determination of alternative plan equivalency. And a Senate proposal regarding state BSA plan equivalency. We have five. You have five, but several of them are not ready to prime time. So what we're going to talk about right now are the house proposed notice requirements. House proposed changes to re-opener language. And house proposed changes to audit language. And we had a misunderstanding about the issue regarding qualifications. And so we just want to clarify before we, we want to clarify that before we move forward on that conversation. So we just, the three of us contacted and we'll settle that. So we have five amendments then right now? Three, three house. Three house to Senate. I don't see the Senate. Why don't you go first on that? Senate ones with paperclip. If I could interrupt, Mr. Chair. We only have Joyce until tour 30. So if there are financial questions, the committee may want to ask her. And then the only other question is whether I should ask the editors to stay late tonight. I don't think it's necessary. But they should be here early in the morning. They're always here early in the morning. All right. Do you want to go first, Tom? Do any of those, none of these address the effective dates of the PIA, of the, of the... I assume we'll do that. Okay. I saw the chart. We haven't discussed it. There are so many dates that need to change throughout the draft. I'm going to hold off on that until the conference committees agree on dates. And then I'll make the changes throughout. Okay. Who presents first? Before going to that, I do think that if we can, for the next time that we meet, if we have a little chart of the dates for our conversation, because when Representative Shah and I went through all the dates, it was helpful to conceptualize the difference between the last bill and this bill. So I think as part of the conversation, that would be helpful. And we didn't have 100% of the dates, but we had the major pieces of the process. So we will have that ready for tomorrow morning. I'm thinking, we haven't until 10, I would think it would be safe to meet at 8.30 and wrap this up. That's fine with me. We just have to make sure we... We may have to wait for the printers to come back, but I think we can shake hands. We can conceivably aim for that absolute end. So 8.30 tomorrow morning we can set that so we don't have to... race at the end of the day today. So 8.30 tomorrow morning is fine. All right, you'll be here. You can be here. All right, so the House proposal of amendments, we have three to consider this afternoon. And this goes... I'm sorry, Damien, how would we handle the one that we also didn't have, because I thought it was a conversation, how do we... What is it that has to be deleted if we were to consider the moving from combined 16 weeks back to 12 individuals? That's the one we don't have on the paper. That's not the not ready for primetime one. That was another one. But we have that already. I mean, if you want to draft, you already have it. I actually have not drafted that yet, but it is literally it just means that on 575A1A, I delete everything out for the common. It's a very simple change. That was just... that you had asked me to see that, and I just didn't... So the first one is the notice requirements. So as Damien testified, there was a thought that the thoroughness of the notice requirements hadn't been... had slipped through the cracks in the bill so that basically what this will... Damien, can you read it? That'll be the easiest in the first case. Can you just read what you... or talk us through what we did? Sure. So the notice requirement here, there's two things to split out. A new section to the paid family leave law requiring employers to post notice in a conspicuous place of the provisions of the new paid family leave law on a form provided by the commissioner of labor. And then it would also require the employer to provide a printed notice of the provisions to new employees within 30 days after the date on which they are hired. That could actually be changed to a written notice. And then the second piece here, the education and outreach. So we already have a timeline for the commissioner of labor to develop information and materials related to the program. So this adds a model poster and pamphlet providing notice of the provisions of the law to those requirements. And then it requires... within a month of that being prepared, employers have to provide a copy of either the model poster or the pamphlet of the employee who was employed on the date that that notice was the deadline for publishing that notice. So that covers all current employees and then going forward all new employees will get notice, plus it should be posted so people will know what their rights are. We felt like this was a technical change that this is the kind of notice we give for programs. And we did a similar thing for paid sick days. Yes, you can post it. But be careful that the only poster ones we're talking about, okay? Pay fees are the ones to not post it. To not post it. But we are posting this. Yes. So on V, is that in vision that each employee is going to get a copy of the model poster? It would be a model poster or... That could also be changed to just the employer shall provide written notice within 30 days and then the employers can do it however they want. E-mail, copy of the poster, prepared by labor. The other thing is you could provide that it's just a model poster for labor so they don't have to provide two things. There is one law where labor is provided both. They're essentially identical. One is in multicolored format and the other is in a traditional poster list. But I just, I went broad and we can always bring it back. We want this model poster to be posted, right? That exists in the bill. Labor typically prepares a model poster. Employers are not required to use the model poster, but they can if they want. So the model posters out there, as we discussed earlier, a lot of employers will pay for a service that updates all of their posters and provides a laminated color copy that they can post each year. But then other smaller employers or employers who are trying to save a little bit on expenses will print out the model poster for labor. If we're going to the effort to make sure that older employees are notified in written fashion, might we not also set the expectation that this is incorporated into employee handbook? Or is that just assumed? I think that's assumed. I mean, I'll use personal experience. My son worked at a local gas station and even the local gas station had an employee handbook. It's a convenience store. But failing that, it's a notification that they're notified within the first 30 days of their employment. And this was important to me and to us, the House, to go beyond just the poster aspect of things because it gets lost. And given the fact that if we are settling, even if it's mandatory or voluntary TDI, that employees deserve to know that this is available. Is there any reason why B just can't say written notice? Yes, that's what we're giving you. B on page two? Yeah, on page two. On page two or B on page two? Shall provide written notice as opposed to model poster or pamphlet. Line 10. Line 10. What are you talking about? Line five on the second page. There are two Bs that say printed. Right, I said page two. I think Danian had suggested that instead of printed, he would say written on line 10. That's right. Page one. And wherever else the word printed is used. That's fine. Model, you can change model poster or pamphlet for written notice. So I think what Senator Ballant is getting at is if you look at page two, lines three to five, it says shall provide a copy of the model poster or pamphlet. And you could just change that to a written notice of the provisions of subchapter. Subchapter, et cetera. That's satisfactory to me. And then on the front, you could change printed notice to written notice. That's satisfactory. Save a word. And just with respect to the employee handbook piece two, it's just worth noting that a lot of employee handbooks will just say the company follows the state law with respect to. And then just list it and rather than going into all the details. Because oftentimes the law changes and the employee handbooks are hard. So to keep them from being outdated, it's simpler to just say we follow the state law. Okay, enough on that proposal. Let's move to audit language. All yours. We have audit language already. This is just to clarify what would appear in the audit and how it would be reported to the audit. The audit language was in the senate version but not the house version. Yes, so the audit language was added in the senate. And then this builds off of the language added by the senate. So what was the language that the senate had? The senate language was, if you take the first sentence, it's related to the provision of family and medical insurance pursuant to the sub chapter audited annually. And then it said and the commissioner of financial regulation and shall provide a copy of the annual audit to the commissioner of financial regulation after that. So the second sentence in 7A is entirely new. And then after commissioner of financial regulation that is new. So the new sentence in 7A provides that the audit shall also include detailed information regarding the number of claims submitted, the number of claims that were denied, the number of claim denials that were overturned on appeal, and any changes in those amounts with respect to the prior year. So either of you know, I assume that this is in some ways some suspenders in the sense that both are useful too. In the sense that this seems like pretty commonplace stuff that you would be looking for in an audit. I'll let Hal's kind of talk about that. Yeah, so kind of reading the language that you all had of books and financial records, books could be a lot of different things and so wanting to be clear that the audit was included the financial health of the company and the processes that they were doing as an insurance company, but then also what were they doing with the claims and how are they, how many claims are coming in, what's their claim return rate and all of that. And so having us be clear that that is what we're asking for and then having it be clear that we can get, as committees of jurisdiction can get oversight as well getting a summary of that so that we have that oversight often. The second part is in subsection B, requiring the Commissioner of Financial Regulation to provide a summary of the audit results to house appropriations, general and ways and means and senate appropriations, economic development and finance. So tracking our RBA I would like to see it not just the number of claims but by category and the duration of the claim. So because we want to I think we want to, I think that for the first couple of years really get a sense of which of these categories are being taken which are being used most, how long are people needing to deal with each of those and yeah. Numbers isn't enough for me, I would rather we discuss this in the previous but by category and by now. The third is house proposed changes to the re-opener language. Looks good. Thank you. And that is just what are the additions to this and what's in the bill. So after the words in the event the general assembly and acts legislation and originally it said requiring mandatory leave for the employees on illness or something to that effect now it says amending the provisions of chapter 5, sub chapter 13 of this title that should actually just say of this sub chapter but that's a drafting error or any other statutory provision related to the family medical leave insurance program that the contract has to require the commissioner and the insurance carrier to reopen the agreement to make any amendments that are necessary to ensure the agreement continues to comply with the law. So is that just, can I consider that just the larger included but not limited to the, in this case I mean the mandatory language was in there but this encompasses mandatory and it can include any scheme that the legislature decides to do. Right so for example if the legislature decided to change the appeals process or to require the insurance carrier to provide notice or training or something like that this could allow the agreement to be reopened to address those issues including funding changes and so forth. And is this language that applies to almost any other contract that we have in terms of how we deal with third parties or whatever I mean if we notice that there's a flaw in a contract or a flaw in a process that we've contracted with do we not have that right, I don't know I can't answer that State contracts are not my area of expertise. I know with collective bargaining agreements the parties have to agree mutually to reopen the agreement and in the contracts that I worked with in private practice typically you have to agree to reopen agreement This is information instructing that this be a part of the negotiations between DSR and this has to be a term of the contract so this is something that potential insurance carriers that are bidding for this contract will understand is going to be a term if they get the contract so it's not necessarily 100% locked in there may be law changes that require the contract to be amended and this provision isn't there to allow for that amendment in that case without requiring the parties to reach some mutual agreement to reopen the contract or otherwise reach the point where they say the contract because the law has changed the contract we can't actually execute the terms of it so we have to amend it and in this case what this is saying is anytime the law is amended they have to look at the agreement to see if it needs to be amended to keep in compliance with the law and if it does they need to reopen and amend it Does this does this open the contract only for those amendments or does it therefore allow the whole contract to be looked at in the event that it is opened I would think that the parties could if the parties agree they can look at any part of the contract and amend it so specifically that are necessary to ensure that the agreement complies with the requirements of the legislation this just addresses reopening to comply with the legislation but in any contract the other thing is the parties can always say you know that provision we had around notice that's not working we need to amend that language and then if they agree that that's the case they can create an addendum to the contract and revise that provision in the contract so I think what you're concerned about is this going to potentially cause problems in the plan because something significant will change the terms of the law are still that the contract has to comply with the law and the contract can be terminated if the insurance carrier falls out of compliance with the law so that's your protection in there is that the contract has to include a term in there that provides that it can be terminated at any time if the insurance carrier fails to comply with the law is this how the app will evolve to the contract between the state and the insurance carrier that's going to administer the plan it doesn't have anything to do with the equivalent plans that people sign up with this is just for the state's administrator the equivalent plans for the insurance carrier and that's what we have for right now yeah, go ahead so may I just revisit the audit because I forgot that Kerry Brown was in the room and I'm going to channel my intertip with my and also ask that we track it by gender that we do by category length of lead and by gender so I think if we're getting specific on demographics then we should include demographics because also looking at what are the race categories that are being included or denied and in terms of age that's helpful so I don't know if there's another right now there's another demographic that jumps out for me but that would also be very clear if there were disparities or discrimination that was happening from the insurance company we tracked those two additional demographics the only thing I would point out here is the insurance carrier may not have all that information so or maybe revealing individuals to get if you're looking at if you're looking at race and if there's anything else that's attached to it it might not be able to be anonymous so there would be something that would need to be and I just question our roles here about what can we do now given the parameters that we're working with and which I think this can fit given that we've already we've already proposed an audit and what can we revisit as we move forward even in this session I definitely agree with that I don't want to go too far on some of these things without taking any testimony because I'm looking at this last one and there's a concept in law about interference with contracts and I get a little nervous that the person if we do hire a private entity to do this and then the law changes and they say well we didn't anticipate that in our pricing and we don't want to have any more part of it then it disrupts the whole thing as opposed to grandfathering until the next contract renewal but as you say I think there are things like this we could continue to look at during the session and get witnesses in and add to the law and the law gets signed and this is something that DFR is this is their job this is their understanding of these and I see Joyce leaving thank you see you in the morning so if we so right now the way that the re-opener language stands is that we we're on re-opener back to re-opener I took us back to audit just because for me measuring who takes advantage of this how long they take advantage of it by what is of great interest to us as we try and sort of leave but I think for the purposes of what we need to do on this bill for this year I think again we can by the time we even if we wait until 2021 right there's time for us whoever's here to address this but I there's a small list of things that I would like to see if we can add on not to this but as an addendum upon further review that we discuss at a later time that with witnesses that I think we've all had seven months to sleep on this bill and know that it's got some really good stuff and some flaws and I think we've addressed this process is addressing some of those but when we start getting into that level of detail it may just hold us back for now but it's something that we I actually think the Government Accountability Committee would really support our getting more needed just so I think at least the first two things lengths of staying in category would be very important for us to understand I mean I don't care what we include I just think we need as many measurable as possible as we do and no disagreement with that I don't have any problems with the suggestion of the anime so I've been getting into getting further in there without hearing from people the capability is length of category I think are critical okay so claims submitted by category average duration of claims by category number of claims denied, number of denials overturned on appeal any change in those amounts in comparison to the prior year but no demographics is that what I'm hearing I think so for now I just want to make sure and I would say we hold off on this one which one is that the reopen or reopen because you're concerned about the changing the deal I'll put perfectly all kind of people in a lot of find out it's not a problem we can add it later which leaves the reopener language as it allows us only for it only allows this provision for moving from voluntary to mandatory if the general assembly passes that change and to die so that's something so you're saying if we move to mandatory that we change the contract essentially discontinue the contract so it wouldn't be the language that is in your version of the bill simply says it implies if the general assembly which means the House and Senate have to approve it and it has to become law moves the bill, moves the program from voluntary to mandatory then the contract can be reopened this is broader but right now it's only limited to if I'm not mistaken it's only limited to the mandatory voluntary versus mandatory the required reopening of the contract is just in that scenario that's required to be a term in the contract parties agree the contract can be reopened in this case this would change that to the parties agree that the contract can be reopened if any statutory changes amending the law which would take the contract out of compliance are there one way to address that we do this a lot with collective bargaining agreements is we just say this law will take effect for the next contract so it won't change the contract you're in currently right here for example it's going to change the material term of the contract with the VSEA or with the teachers union a lot of times what we'll say is this change applies from this date into all contracts entered into on or after that date so that's just it seems to me that's just more words than that we can if we just didn't put this in that would be the result anyway right so that's what I'm saying is if we left it the way it is now that's probably what you would do for other things that might materially change the contract that's not to say that the state and the third party insurance carrier couldn't agree to reopen the contract on their own this would just not force the reopening in those cases so that also mirrors again the world right now in the world right now a contract can be reopened with mutual agreement yeah you can always mutually agree to revisit your agreement and potentially adjust it what you can't do and what Senator Sorokin was getting at here is the state in particular cannot unilaterally change the terms of its contracts because it's unconstitutional for the state to do that putting in the re-opener here puts the puts them on notice and makes the term of contracts they know going in which is different than the state coming back two years later and saying surprise we're gonna pay you less money to do this or something like that which is usually where the contracts clause issues come in as the state agrees to something one times are good the economy turns south and it tries and not this state but other states have gotten into trouble when they've suddenly tried to pull back on what they paid to unionized employees or something like that without actually getting agreement from the union to do it this state the last time the economy went south sat down with the union and they negotiated a change so that they avoided that issue okay that's okay hopefully tomorrow morning will be prime time for this other amendment that we have and for the senate amendments let's hear the senate amendment so in reading over the bill I think both sides in terms of the equivalency plan we didn't include this came up on the state employees when we testified we didn't include the fact that something can add as many people say to the value of an equivalent plan if it covers TDI there was no there was no consideration of an alternative plan providing for TDI in terms of whether it met equivalency to the state's plan and Damian and I picked that up that's what the short version talks about do you want to explain a little bit sure I just want to make sure we're looking at the same piece here here so this piece here this is where the commissioner of financial regulation reviews any alternative plans and then alternative plan is the state has a plan that will be administered by under the scenario okay it's not the state run plan per se right or it could be I suppose so there's the state's plan and then the insurance company says hey I can buy my insurance company has offered this product to me for this price can I do it they have to get clearance from the state exactly to do this they're going to show the brochure and the charge list and the benefits list to DFR DFR is going to determine whether it's okay or not when Senator Sorak and I were looking over this piece is when we've done this in the house the language was just fine because TDI was mandatory so reviewing the benefits and the length of leave and the cost that worked out just fine but under the senate's plan you're going to have some employer plans that offer TDI and bundled up and you'll have others where it's opt in and so what this says is in making the determination of equivalency the commissioner can consider the relative value of any medical leave or TDI that's provided to employees and then the subdivision cross references the reference to basically the provision that says you have two options one is to say you can opt in or the other is to say I'm just going to provide this to all the employees and so if the employer is opting to provide it to all employees that will be considered for purposes of equivalency so under the proposal from the senate how do you qualify or quantify the relative value of the voluntary TDI where it's opt so if I take it it has value if Deanna doesn't take it it doesn't have value and so what is the mechanism for some for a disinterested reviewer to say huh well if again the plan that's on the table in twin state is six weeks of this six weeks of this at 60% flat and this plan is 12 and 8 and 6 but the 6 is a maybe and the 8 is a definite I mean all those those are the prices for this how does that work so in both the house and the senate plan cost to employees is a factor to be considered I think I'm not sure it's going to be a scientific assessment I mean it's going to be sort of like veggie and vebsie throw everything into a black box and come out with the product but I guess these actuaries have ways of doing it and the next provision we're suggesting deals with the issue you're talking about and that is I we don't want to particularly upset the state employee contract and they've got all different moving parts no cost to them they have TDI they got shorter weak benefits and so instead of in that one we just say instead of doing that full analysis with the potential that it could blow up even though they all agree to it we're saying let's just move on and let them at least the commissioner can say that that's an equivalent plan and that's what he would have to do in a case by case basis but all we're really adding here is in this amendment from what we have is the TDI the issues of other relative benefits the length of the lead the wage replacement rate the cost to the employee those are all complicating factors already in terms of coming up with the equivalency but it just seems to be fair that there probably will be plans out there that have that are like the state plan that includes TDI so my understanding is correctly you're trying to capture and lump in the potential employee employer offered benefit of TDI when looking at paid family leave and so say there's an employer who offers paid family leave of 5 weeks and TDI of 3 weeks those numbers don't add up but I'm just trying to get a sense of what this proposal is that that would be an equivalent or you know those numbers add up to the paid family leave that we're looking at that's the intent of this so I think the way to think about it is so there's value to each type of leave and this is saying if the employer is lumping that TDI and that value should be considered versus the state plan where your mandatory value is only the first two that's basically what this is looking at and that was out on the senate side last spring probably just in the rush to get things done and something else just overlooked so that's all this is saying I mean we have a bunch of senators that came to us and said you know are you upsetting existing plans in terms of someone buying into this equivalency and what they were saying was what if they have slightly different benefits make sure the benefits so this is what and it doesn't have to be a paid I mean it's possible that it could be partially paid by the employer then that would be another factor that they weigh in I mean one of the things that we looked at in terms of the state employee program that made me think of it is that as you heard in the same testimony they got a 0.25 wage replacement if their plan didn't go forward and under this thing under our proposal it's 0.20 so I was thinking if I got my facts right that they're probably getting a slightly better benefit because they're getting state employee to pay them back that kind of money if they don't go through so should we be sticking our nose into that contract right now well the other thing that VSEA proposal has was in a classic collective bargaining situation the state put this plan on the table and the VSEA returned with their cascading issue which I don't know if you've heard about where they wanted to be able to use the crude sick leave to care for family members which is an integral part of this in which they would be able to get reimbursed at 100% and so that is that you know getting the classic sense of at least the way that I understand the way that the contract has been proposed and agreed upon by the union is that the language says if this leave plan is implemented this is what you'll get if it's not implemented you get to 0.25% but that equivalent negotiation has also provided them with a backstop of at least being able to use a crude sick time for helping a family member which is a bonus to them and I don't know what limitations there would be on that but the fact that they were able to negotiate that as a union I think may just help alleviate your concerns about how that might work for them that's not just about the increase in salary but that it is this option that they're able to use their own time and the administration's testimony on why they included this is because of course new employees don't have a crude leave time to the level that an older employee might have so I don't know which way or the other whether it's better or worse if we put it into the black box I guess we could get a determination but this is sort of a development that's taken place in the last eight or nine months since we passed it out so now we have to deal with it I think we just can't say nothing about it so is that that's the second one that's the second one the first two paragraphs the first one that you're proposing is simply for regardless of the program that the state implements on its own accord someone else still a business still has the option to have it different which is similar in some respects to what New Jersey does is that right well I think it was in both versions of the bill all we're doing in this one is adding another factor which is I'm just clarifying that this is something that the notion of having a private plan so these companies that already contract with other people and by doing this alternative plan this is the part that gives them a waiver that says that they can that they and their employees don't have to pay into the system California and New Jersey both definitely already have this there may be one or two other states too but those of you that I know for sure have an alternative plan option their language around it is a little different but they do offer employees the option to get a private plan I need a question I wanted to go back to the state employees plan equivalency and then we had put in and the senate kept in the very last paragraph on page 55 of the senate proposal we had put in about an employee that subject to collective bargaining agreement shall not be required to pay contributions subject to the provisions until the effective date of the next collective bargaining so we addressed the union issue at the time and so I don't know if that actually would have ever addressed the state one or if we have to also say notwithstanding the state do they have to be connected in some fashion or are they at cross purposes in any way I don't think there are cross purposes so this language that was put in last spring affected both the state employees contract because April 1, 2020 was during the collective bargaining agreement and their agreement wouldn't start until July 1 but there's also other unions in the state that are going to be affected and school districts are on a variety of different schedules municipalities same thing they're on a variety of different schedules and then the other thing is you have any sort of private unions that are under the national labor relations act they're under a variety of different schedules too so having this language in here is still probably important because it's going to prevent the unions and the unionized employers from having their contract go out of compliance and also prevent them from having to figure out so we owe all these contributions but we haven't actually agreed who's responsible for them and so I think that's still important the new language on the the SEA state plan equivalency I don't think is that cross purposes to that because what it provides basically is that they've already negotiated something for the time being and so that'll be the equivalent for this first contract to go around and they're not going to be required to negotiate but they're not going to be required to conduct additional negotiations under the law which says they have to negotiate all this stuff for that contract so they've already negotiated that contract they can do it for the next one so would they revert to the last page the next time they come out for contract negotiations would they automatically have to revert to that or be it forever more deeming as equivalent so the way this is worded here it says the paid family and medical leave program agreed to by the state and its collective bargaining unit that takes effect July 1, 2020 shall be deemed to provide equivalent benefits that's only going to be agreed to for the contract and then again this is the bargaining agreement or the bargaining requirement which says 638 that is is in the law that this is creating so they're required to bargain with the union on how they're going to deal with family leave each time through that's just not applying to the contract that they've already negotiated so the next time around the union is free to say we didn't like this we want 888 or we want 70% wage replacement or whatever it is and then at that point they can go through the equivalency so is that our segue to this I mean that's it except for the effective dates yeah the effective dates I've updated dates in here obviously these dates may change again based on the conversation this morning and the only other change in the effective date section is we now have 22 sections instead of 21 so I have to make a change in subsection A to add that section the new section 21 which used to be the effective date section would take effect on passage just like most of the rest of the bill it's not a material change in that effective date area okay and it's definitely different than what the chart that I sent you definitely different from the chart that you sent me I figure until everything gets ironed out with the conference committee I'll hold off on putting that in so based upon what we talked about today are you able to do a committee conference report we have at least one other issue that we need to talk about and potentially insert but other than that are you pretty much there? right so let me just confirm what I'm going to be adding to it and I would just like a few minutes before we break up before we agree that we're all I just want to talk to my colleagues specifically go ahead and give you an opportunity to talk about the amendments that have been presented and I want to to be continued but I just I don't want to okay but I mean that speaks I mean Damien based on whatever we end up with now for tonight you can have that I guess the questions you can have that starting a conference report can be formed there you go right yeah let me just the 12 week okay so I have removed the 16 week count the BSEI equivalency the plan equivalency the audit language and the changes to the notice requirements those are the five changes plus I've already drafted the beginning basis for the conference report with generically just move out all the dates forward one year so I'll have those highlighted and then we can work through those tomorrow unless you agree on dates tonight is there anything I'm missing so tomorrow when we see the next the next report anyway I mean we don't we well we know that in order to make it 12 weeks and 12 weeks rather than 16 weeks it requires just a deletion but we will see that on paper when we see that you'll see that is it alright with the committee if I do the conference report as a strike on does that work for everyone or would you like to see instances of amendment because there will be dozens of them there will be dozens of them yeah with all the dates I think a strike will be easier let me just understand so if we did house the seats to the senate version with the following amendments you're saying because right now we don't have that many and as opposed to something appearing on the calendar except I don't know with the all the amendments on the dates where that you have to bring in every section and all this stuff and then it becomes really long I'm interested in brevity if we can highlight the changes in a conference that way as opposed to what a strike on why don't I try to do instances of amendment it'll take a little longer to draft but I mean ultimately the length will be shorter there will just be you're going to have a lot of and it'll also highlight the five changes we're making as opposed to but if we were just thinking I mean my concern with just only having the amendments is that it's been a while since people have seen the whole bill and so if there's if the whole bill appears in our respective calendars that gives people an opportunity to read cover to cover and then if the what we have to present is are the instances I mean I would simply say this bill is roughly the same as it was last year except and then make them and then go point to point I mean that would be a report that I would get from them I wouldn't have to go I mean I would go through a substantial portion of the bill in general but I would highlight the changes we would be able to highlight the changes what's the best way to do it that way this is what I think and I'm willing to defer for you guys it may make more sense to do a full bill because we sent you over something that we already voted on and we're making just five changes to that bill you know we have a lot of agreement at the end of the year on what we sent you over there but maybe your full body and not aware of all those changes so maybe you I think that's an accurate statement I prefer I could get up there and say these are the changes we made for what you already voted on and be done I agree and I think in this case on a bill that's just important I think it's important given the time difference between the two just to give I don't mind if a few branches on a tree provide people the opportunity to read the whole bill again if they have this is a conference report there will not be further amendments that people have to have an opportunity to voice their support or opposition to what we've agreed upon so I just I'm just trying to adhere to more information in this particular case better than less and you know I'm assuming that don't say it out loud don't say it out loud I'm going to write in a rare mode I'm writing it what I can do is prepare a strike all amendment then I can also prepare an outline that says in section X these changes were made which is roughly what you do for any bill I think that upon request well the bills but I'm not concerned with I'm asking you to do more work but also so if we can take if we can take five minutes now just a five minute break can you just go back to what you just said I thought actually they didn't thought that a strike all would be simpler for him and would be better for you which I think would be quite honest that's where we are but then he would present us with when we asked Damien for a bill synopsis that builds the foundation of any floor report that we do Damien will basically give us this he's already done some changes some way of changes and we're older now so bump up my font 18 could we request 16 or 18 no they're still 18 hey I have to buy I'm like the biome so if we can take five minutes before we adjourn we'll leave you here we'll go to another room actually we're going to go across the hall because I have a room alright do you agree or do you want it we are fine the proposals that you proposed and with the language the amendments that we've made so we will see what appears tomorrow and continue on with the job quality with the employee qualification language tomorrow and and then the dates of the specifically of the all of it well the RFI then it becomes available that was the major question in terms of other dates outside and that might affect the dates all the way through we can talk about that with a fresh brain I'd like a fresh brain why don't we look for you in the cafeteria and I will take care of you