 Thank you for joining us. I apologize that we are running a little bit late. So we have feedback from several committees regarding aspects of S-54 that we understand they would like to weigh in on. And so I was hoping that you could present to me the request of the Transportation Committee that you and I spoke about. Yes, if this committee is interested in looking at the seat belt portion of S-149, which is the Salinas Motor Vehicle Bill that passed the House on the third meeting yesterday, goes to the Senate today. As you know, I think the only reason there were any no's from the voice vote yesterday in Friday was the seat belts. So it's somewhat controversial, but still a strong majority of the House supports it and the House has supported it for the last several years, and the Senate has not. The language that you see in that bill now, I don't want to speak for the Governor, but let me say I believe that he signed that bill. So the problem is only in the Senate. So another place with that exact language, but you can obviously do what you want with it, but being related highway safety, which is some of the biggest concerns with marijuana, it would be great if you guys put it in that bill or at least consider that. We've also given the saliva testing issue to Judiciary. I'm not dealing with that at all. So you never look at that. This isn't in lieu of saliva testing, that is what you're saying. Oh, no. And when I talked to Mike maybe about it, the first question was they didn't want to give it up, you know, give up the seat. They thought it was coming out of our bill, and if the request would be to put it in this bill, no, it would be duplicative. And if both bills pass in the end, like I said, Johnson always worked that out, so we don't have the exact language. I haven't shown the two bills. It comes out with one. It's exact language in two different bills that both pass. Yes, as long as it's identical, it's in the effective date. Do you want to take a vote for a word or two different? Whichever has the later time date, or if there's a date then we're all off. Okay, just so that we're clear here, not to say that we said what's in there, but yeah, so you're proposing that we put primary seat belt enforcement into the become a part of the estimate that people want to get. Yeah, for those of you that aren't in pain, we're not going to benefit you. Yeah, all we're doing is, when your seat belt is required by law, instead of two days, what is not allowed is that to be the primary enforcement. And what that means is a police officer cannot pull your car over because he or she thinks you don't have your seat belt on. They can pull you over for another reason, such as a license plate light, which we discussed just yesterday. And while you're pulled over, as the officer notices you don't have your seat belt on, you can be ticketed for him. But that's, and that's called secondary, secondary enforcement. And I would also note that we took out the penalty for the first offense. So it's really a warning for the first time. Because we don't want to issue any tickets from our industry. Okay, so that's helpful to understand. So you are requiring or you are allowing primary seat belt, but the first time, it's a warning. Okay, Rob. Does that work as well? It's the secondary offense? Or is there generally going to be a fine associated with it? In other words, I did pull over for command battle inspection sticker, not wearing my seat belt. Do I get the same consideration? You mean, could there be a fine because of the seat belt not being run? Yes, and it's the first time you're pulled over? No, it would still be no fine for the seat belt. Yeah, just to clarify. If you're pulled over for something else, I think is what he's saying. It's a secondary enforcement right now. Of the seat belt thing. What happens today? Are you going to ask $25, first time? Okay, so on a secondary enforcement, are we taking away the $25? Yes, sir. Forget about primary for a minute. Maybe not. Yeah, good question. Well, it's actually, you were unclear. It was perfectly clear. So between the day quo and the night quo, I think it's time to talk about how this is germane to the pot belt. Other than just the general umbrella of your driving impaired, you're safer when you're felt again. Is that the bottom line? Yeah, well, that's it. I think that, well, people have different reasons, you know, shoulder supporting and not supporting legalizing marijuana. So one of the primary reasons for some people, including the governor, is not having faith in saliva testing and then being concerned that it's, you know, another thing that somebody might be impaired and maybe saliva testing those who think this, but don't trust saliva testing. So they just want to be as safe as possible on the road. And I'm looking at it as another way to pass. So my second reason, my reason, because it's peretical, trying to get it done, but there is definitely a nexus. Yeah, I had two things. One, I think they already get on the answer was, we don't know yet. Yeah. And that was what happens to the first offense that you get now, because it's not a primary. Steve Bell is not a primary. So you can stop the speed. The officer, you're not wearing a seatbelt. He checks the box. And let's say it's changed with that. And off the job report four years, I don't know. But in tax on it, you check a box and you get a 25-hour additional fine for the seatbelt. So what, so the bill that's going through eliminates the first, eliminates the first offense from having a fine. So my question was going to be, did that, how did that affect the current law? And then the second question, sir, is that when we, I think I answered that or not. No, I didn't. If you get a primary stop 40 seatbelt, the officer stops you, gives you, or again, lieutenant might have to answer this one procedurally, does the officer give you a real ticket, not a warning ticket, but a real ticket for the seatbelt violation, but with no fine? Because somehow that has to be tracked. So if somebody in my town of Milton does this, somebody in Bennington needs to see that in a DMV computer and or whatever. And you know what I'm saying? And I can't just go into the computer systems because there's a couple different computer systems being used in this state. It's Billman and Valpar. And she knows what I'm talking about, but there's two different. So I'm just wondering, do you issue a ticket without the fine? Has that been looked at? And see, we got two issues here. You got to track the offenses in order to have the primary seatbelt work because you eliminated the fine on the first one. And because you've done that, you also now eliminate the fine for the secondary drivers. Yeah, I believe the ticket is still written, but it's your first time. And we'll say that most of us, if it's your first time, primary reason seatbelt, right, a ticket is written, there's no fine. Right. And I think I'm thinking that, I think the answer to Rob and Jim's question is going to be that, that you don't pay that even if it is secondary because the way we put it in the wall, but I have to check that. Mike Massage and that. What's our current compliance rate? It's very high. And how we raise probably like 6% by this, if we experience what other states have. I believe it's, Lieutenant, isn't it about 80% compliance with emergency bill? But please contemplate this along with that. Last year of all the highway deaths in Vermont, 63% of those deaths, the person did not have a seatbelt. Yeah, I guess my concern was I understand seatbelts should be one of the state decreases. And I agree that we need to somehow inform the public so that they become better aware of the ones that aren't aware of it. However, I have a concern with the fact that currently you can't stop somebody not wearing a seatbelt. If it's the only thing you see, if we put it in the law where they can do that, what does that lead to for the next step that will be a search of whatever just because I don't like the way the person looks. Just to remind you this has to be the law that has a voice location. I know. We can certainly pursue those questions. But I also am aware that we have a 1030 change of gear to come back to another bill. So let's see if we can air some questions. And then I would welcome you all to have some hallway conversations and follow up with State Police or the Transportation Chair, Jim and then Ron. So real quickly, I don't have any issue with putting this on the bill. Secondly, I would recommend that we keep the $25 for both. I think a warning, if we're serious about this, $25 is not very harsh penalty. Arguably it's too light, but to take it away all together may encourage people to, well, until they get stopped, don't have to worry about it. Ron? Good name. I'll give you one more question. Any points on the license that goes on? Okay. How many times were you excited for not wearing a seatbelt that never asked us? Thank you for your patience in our bill delay and thank you for helping us understand what we have to ask for. Thank you. Debate these two later? Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Kurt. So committee, we've got about 25 minutes to spend on the slainist retirement bill that is back from the Senate with one small change. So I understand that Becky Wasserman is on her way up to join us.