 Hi, this is the House Human Services Committee returning from our pause continuing our afternoon meeting of February 19th, Friday. And we are going to be, have people gotten a chance to read the memo? Are you ready to make any kind of comment or see what, you know, if we can raise our hands as to whether their majority of us are okay with sending it to appropriations? You want further discussion? I'm seeing head shakes. Okay. We'll use the, we'll use the hand raise, the reaction, do you all have a reaction on your, I'm now using a different computer. Who all is okay with sending the memo as is in our two appropriations? Please do that. Okay. So we have a majority, one, two, three. Okay. We have, Topper, we're fine. I'm asking people to raise their hand or not in terms of whether they agree with sending the memo to appropriations. I would agree right now. Pardon me. Do you want, oh, okay. Well, I have a question. Well, good. That's what this is for. Okay. The reason I raise this question is because you specifically wanted us to deal with weatherization. And I asked the question this morning about where was it? And you said it was in the front. You concurred with, with weatherization. Correct. And okay, I'm sorry. So a quick concur. A concur means you agree. You'll put it in the letter. It's, there's a, exactly. There's a line in the, there is a broad line in the first paragraph or so that says, Katie, Katie may not be here right now. Madam Chair, can I read the line if you'd like? Okay. Yeah. No, Katie, we can read the line. Just tell me where it is. I can read it. It's the last line of the first paragraph, Topper. Can you read it out loud? I would be happy to. The committee concurs with any proposals in the governor's budget that are not specifically referenced below. It takes care of it for me. Okay. I was looking for the word. And, and I'm satisfied you all wish Madam Chair about weatherization. What satisfies me, Representative McFawn, is that you are happy. So I believe that I saw everyone's hand up. Okay. Katie, thank you very much. Can I just say a word? Absolutely. I was just going to say I still would have preferred obviously that we didn't make some prioritization, but I think I was voted down on that on some prior thing that we decided we weren't going to do that. So just wanted to make the comment that, but above and beyond that, I'm willing to send them out. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for making that known. And this is on some level a diversion of how we have agreed, how we've done this in the past, but this is a new day and we can change how we do things. And Carl, I have to say that you're rubbing off on me. And I wouldn't have been upset if we had prioritized, but I'm fine with us sending everything forward. So thank you. Okay. So Teresa started just was starting to put to set sort of the stage, both in terms of we have four days after today. And we haven't really talked language and, but we haven't talked about what we've heard. So on some level I wanted to have a general discussion about what we heard and what we were, what other information we perhaps needed. Am I repeating or going down a different direction? Okay. Representative Rosenquist. I guess I could use some more discussion around I guess the governance portion. We talked about governance. I'm still not quite sure what we mean by that. Okay. One, I mean, we're looking at governance as it relates to the bill. So I'm going to go, I'm now looking at my hard copy of the bill to find out what section we're in. And section 14. And that is the section that the people who testified. Section 12 is the study on the governance. Um, in the bills, it's section 14 in my copy. Oh, that's weird. Where it says early care and education governance study. Oh, it's section 14 for you. Oh, okay. Yes. No, I have that section 12. Um, and then we have section. That's the committee. Section 14 is the creation of a committee. Well, I know, but it said governance as well. And that's really, I mean, and that is really on some level. Do we want the, do we want the bill on, do you want to see it on the screen? Um, and, and, uh, Julie, you can, you can make me co-chair while, um, I think Katie had to step away for a moment. Yes. One moment. Oh, but does that mean I have to share mine? Oh, I can't do that. I can do it. Okay. Because I don't have one. I mean, I don't have something to share. I just need a moment. So can I just, as one thing I'm doing, and maybe this would be good if we did it together, is, um, trying to write out a list of issues, like a list of what are the things that we're probably going to have to decide to get through this. And so first on my list is enrollment versus attendance, some decision making around that we're probably going to have to, maybe that goes into the study, but that's something that a lot of people have brought up, right? And who and how many on the study committee would be another thing? There's a lot. So I'm not going to, I think we should just all talk about that. That's a, that's a good, that's a good idea. Okay. So we're going to go down. Can I do this? Or no, Julie, does this mean you have to do the whole thing? I can do it unless you want me to send you the bill and then you can share it, but I'm happy to do it. Oh, thank you. I mean, I could do it. I'm stumped. I think we want, um, in order to answer, uh, or in order to look at what Carl is talking about, we need page 14. Okay. Section 14, I think. Oh, you want us to go to section 14. Okay. Which is a few pages after that. Yeah. Carl, what, um, what, uh, what Teresa was pointing out is that there, um, was that there was, there's also a study on section 12, but you were talking about this one. Everyone take off. It's, I can't hear you, Carl. Yeah, I guess I should go to 12 and find out if I have a question on that as well. I was just, and I think Johnny spoke to this. He was, was he concerned about this one as far as adding some members is my recollection. That's what I brought me to it. Okay. We did hear from the business, the business people this morning, very much focused on increased participator participation at all. Cause as I was reading the members, I don't think there really are any, um, uh, of, uh, businesses on, on an advisory committee and they, the, the first group of folks, they, they all essentially want to see this as represented. Yeah. And for me, one of the, one of the big questions that I have is, you know, this, this, this sets up building bright futures as convening this group, but not being this group. And, um, I, I have some, I just have some questions about that. I mean, it, it seems like, um, the things that, and I'd be interested to hear from Jessica because she's actually on the building bright futures, um, board or whatever they call it, um, as to whether or not, um, whether or not she feels that this really is one of the charges for building bright futures or maybe, maybe there, there actually is legislation that created building bright futures. And maybe we should look at that language to see if it coincides with this. I'm, I'm having a difficult time with the creation of a whole separate governance and administration advisory committee. If I, I agree, Teresa. And I actually, I can bring that, I can get that to, to Julie to post is the original building bright futures if you want, or I can just send it to everyone. Actually, Jessica, that's very helpful. I think what we need is not a description, but the statutory reference. That's what I meant. Yeah. I've looked for the statute. I think I have it in my vote, my original. But you, you can do it if you have the time. Otherwise, that's something that, um, we're really that, that legislative council can do for grace. That'd be great too. And you know, I forget all the time, but we can kill me later, but we can get that from Katie. But I, and I agree with, um, what representative would just treat, I guess now we can say Teresa, um, is saying, because it does seem very similar. And why do we need, we're already starting setting up a study committee, then to also set up another, um, committee just in it's an advisory committee. And the whole idea of building bright futures is to give us advice and counsel based on real data and real information. And that's essentially what is here. So, and all those people in the, you know, one through, um, 15, pretty much, I think they're all on. They're all, they, all of these people are represented on the advisory council. Well, in the, in the creation under section, oops, sorry. No, I'm just thanking Julie for, for moving things when I don't. Okay. And I don't, um, it's now that we have that up there, I can't see people, I can't see people. So are we just, are we just talking, or are we supposed to raise our hands? I don't, I don't want to do something I'm not supposed to. Well, God knows. I'm at this point, I can't see anybody. So we're, we're, we're in, um, for, free for all. Yes, I was going to say, I was going to say, um, what is in the past when we were all in the room, what ends up happening when we're having discussion, which is we're, it is a bunch of a free for all. And because that seems to be easiest. And we do have, before we do have, Katie has put in the chat, in the chat what the statute is. And it is chapter 33. If we want to go down that road, I can, I think put this up, oh God, or maybe I'll ask someone else to, um, do we want to go down there? But I don't know if we want to do it right this moment, Madam Chair, but I, I, I think that that's, it's one thing for us, and maybe, maybe, um, for us to, um, take a look at and, and do a comparison of, and maybe that's something we could ask, um, Ledge Council to help us with to look at the section and compare it to the existing statute, because I'm drawn to the word right under creation in, in section 14 paragraph A that it says it's created to advise the department. That's exactly why Building Bright Futures was created was to advise the department about a lot of these same things. And if we need to, if there's something that isn't in the, the, um, Building Bright Futures statute, then maybe we need to amend that, like maybe to add membership to the council or something like that representing businesses. But I, I just have a hesitation about creating a whole nother new group that has, um, responsibilities that are so similar. Absolutely agree. I agree too. Yes. I agree. We could do the amendment. We could do an underlining amendment or whatever. No, no, this is, this is where it we, that's true. This, this is our bill. So we don't have to do any of this. You know, we can, we can strike the entire bill and put new words in whenever we, I mean, and we can, yeah. Okay. It's, yeah, work for, for, for, so this is, um, so, okay, we'll, um, ask Katie to do that. Um, oh, Dane, thank you. You're trying to raise your hand. I can see it. Uh, that's fine. It just went up. Um, I, as far as, uh, if we could maybe pivot sections a little bit, another section where it seemed like there was maybe some redundancy was under the eligibility side of things. Um, I know Melissa presented to us some of the current regulations on CC FAP and it seemed to include some of the things on part time employment, non-traditional work hours, things like that. So maybe just to take a look at what's already in the regulations versus what's proposed in this bill. Um, Dane, can you help us? What section are you talking about? Section two? Uh, let us see here. One moment. Um, yes. Section two on page, um, five. Okay. Julie, can you get us to page five? Um, and, and also, um, actually it might be better to look at right now. Section four on page seven. Okay. Section four, page seven. And, um, yeah, Melissa's from CDD. Yeah, substantive change. Right. On her presentation on Wednesday, she showed us some of the, um, regulations on CC FAP and I'll put that in the chat if that's all right, just so people have the link on hand. Um, but it seemed to include existing language about things like, um, what the established service needs are and then includes things like training or education or second or third shift employment. Um, so I thought that we should maybe just take a look at what's already in the regulations. Oh, okay. Um, ma'am, ma'am chair. Yes. Um, sort of another overarching question that seems to be, um, uh, if we take away from the commissioner's testimony and I think Melissa's as well, um, is the concept of is this a needs-based program or is this, uh, essentially creating an entitlement to childcare for all Vermonters? So, um, that seems to be like a major question. Right, right. That's, I mean, I think that that is sort of following we are going, lots of things, but following sort of what, um, Jessica started in terms of thinking of what I would say is some big overarching questions. Yes. Um, one, the thing about, um, that would seem like an overarching question that as a committee, we need to sort of grapple with and then we can grapple with the words. If that makes sense. Right. That seems like a question like sort of as maybe even among the first questions. Yeah. Because then things that we decide about, uh, payment schedules and whether you're, you know, you know, some of the other things, sometimes I guess maybe I'm thinking that they might fall from our discussion about, about what our intent is around, around that major question. Then I see Topper has his hand up. Yes, he does, but I, uh, he'd be, he'd be very patient. I'm just talking, sorry. That's okay. Um, Topper. Yes, let me get you. Have we lost you? Looks like he's unmuted, but he's gone. Yeah, it might be service or something. It's knowing. Until we get Topper back, could I offer something along the, uh, what Teresa was just talking about? Um, some of my, my thoughts on this and people feel free to disagree with me. Um, but it's just looking at the, and this is sort of where I started to go with eligibility is, um, one of my really big interests is looking at that cost of care, um, transition and supporting childcare providers in that way and really, uh, improving access and increasing access that way. And I'm a little bit hesitant with the, with the limited time that we have to spend too much, uh, effort increasing eligibility to a wait list. Um, you know, for, for a system that's currently a little bit, um, strained, but people, please feel free to disagree or offer their thoughts. Can you help me understand what you mean? No, not yet. Okay. Well, I'm, I'm just, I'm, um, okay. It follows a good, I mean, it follows good. Try to remember that, but Topper's been, been very patient and we now see him again. Are you, are you all set for me? We are all set for you. Okay. Uh, after reading, um, the legislation that's already in place, um, at least to me anyway, it appears that what we should do is provide the businesses some seats on that council and get rid of that other, that whole section. And I don't, I don't even know why we need to do the financial study because from reading that legislation, why couldn't they do it? Why couldn't the council do it? Topper, thank you. Those are, um, certainly things that we need to talk about. And, um, it sounds like you have looked at who was on the Building Bright Futures and so have, have, you are moving in the direction. Well, there's 14, uh, there's, there's 14 seats appointed by the governor. I think it's the governor. Um, I don't see the business representation. Maybe I missed it, but, uh, we could add them to that council. Thank you, Topper. Um, it sounds like your feedback is, um, you are, you are, um, there are members of the committee who also agree with you that, um, in terms of section four 14 setting up a whole new, um, uh, advisory council may not be, um, the best way to go rather to look at what is the, um, existing. And you're ahead of some of us. Not all of us have recently re-looked at the Building Bright Futures advisory council. Thank you, Topper. Uh, Jessica. I'm muted. I'm already good. Um, I don't know which question. I wanted to go back to Dane's question. And, um, I just was curious what you meant by what waiting list, the waiting list to get in so that you can access childcare. Yeah. So, uh, and, and feel free to, again, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. I'm trying to be a little bit pragmatic about the whole system. And I mean, fortunately, it seems like there's agreement on moving forward on the expanding CCFAP, right? To make it more affordable for families. Um, but then it seems like the next part of that is really supporting the providers, um, allowing them to support their staff, right? And then so that's another bump that I feel like is the next level that I'd really like to prioritize. I also fully support any barriers to accessing that we need to address. Um, but if, um, if we had to choose, I would rather really stabilize within the existing framework and support providers and then look to increase that access. Some people could definitely disagree that we need to go all at once. Um, but that's just something I'm thinking about. I, so you're, I just want to be really clear. So you're thinking about the workforce, right? Versus the, um, and you're not saying that you're not thinking about the others, but you'd like, if you had to prioritize what order we went in, we'd, we'd first think about the pro, the workforce and then the, um, families accessing. My, my thought is that capacity right now is limited, right? A lot of people are being on wait lists right now. And I think that one of the best ways to increase capacity is to transition to that cost of care model. Yeah. Yeah. And then as we look at the other components of this that might be, um, expanding eligibility, that might be, um, have a better impact once providers are more geared to expand their capacity. Thank you. Yeah. No, I definitely, and madam chair, now I, I have a question for topper on his, his comment. Is that okay? We're having, um, we're sitting around the table. Okay. We're, okay. So, so topper, I totally agree with the 14 that there should, maybe we want to look at a way to just make section 14 building bright futures. We don't need two, but the section 12, which is the actual study and section 13, that's made up of much more financial people for the state because they're going to be looking at how do we pay for this? So I don't think that can be building bright futures because see there's the state treasurer, the auditor, the joint fiscal, I mean, they're all the finance people and those people aren't on building bright futures. And I think in order to do the study about how do we pay for all this, um, we need those kind of people at the table. Yeah. I don't mind having them at the table, Jessica. I was just looking for a, an entity to be responsible for getting the study done. Oh, I see. Overseeing the work and facilitating it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that I understood not so much that, you know, I just want to be sure that I understand. Well, if we're going to put building bright futures in the driver's seat, then we should let them drive the whole car. Yeah. It's the way I look at it. Yes. And just to, um, this is, this is fabulous. This is, it's hard, especially because I can only see four people. Um, but we are really having a discussion. We're not, um, and bringing out the questions people have. We're not making any, um, real decisions right now. We're trying to figure flesh out where we are. Carl. I was just wondering, because a lot of what we're talking about seems to be, uh, you know, where some of these things coming from, why is this council in there, that sort of thing. Could somebody elucidate for us how this bill came about? In other words, I know building, what do you call it? Let's grow kids, presumably work with somebody, uh, in ledge council or something to develop this bill, or did they work with somebody in our committee? And I was just trying to get a better concept of how the bill was built. Is it strictly, uh, let's grow kids or is it, has there been some work by our ledge council and or this committee in the drafting of this bill to this extent? And I'm going to turn to, um, Jessica and to, um, Teresa. Jessica is the lead sponsor and Teresa worked, um, the two of them along with Amy and Emily. I mean, Emily, Cornhizer. And we're not, I'm not really the lead sponsor. It's just I have a B as a last name. So I happen to be the first one on it, but it's me and Teresa and Emily and Mike Marcott. I think that's right. And Dave Yacoboni and Mayna Townsend. Okay. And, um, we just, we did all work together. I think, um, Teresa, Emily and I did a lot of it with Katie and, um, we worked from the suggestions of let's grow kids. Does that? Yeah, I think that that's fair to say. I mean, they, let's grow kids have put a lot of work into what they felt were the components. We did take out, um, a couple of sections that we didn't, um, we didn't feel as, as people who are going to be taking the lead sponsors that they, um, that frankly, they were practical. Um, and, um, so trying to, is what Dane said, I have that same, uh, pragmatism bone in my body and trying to, um, do that. So, um, that I will say though that I'll just speak for myself. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything that's in this bill the way it's written. I, uh, I am totally open as, uh, to any of the changes that the committee is looking to make. Um, it was just we who, who sort of got this onto the table. Um, but I can tell you that, yeah, the, the, the bones of this bill was really, uh, something that, um, frankly, um, let's grow kids worked with ledge council on, and then we commented. Exactly. And I agree. Thank you. That helps. As I say, I guess I'm recommend based on that, that one thing we really look at is sort of eliminating section 14 because it seems to be repetitive in terms of what, uh, what's the other organization call it again? Okay. Yeah. I always get them mixed up, not let's grow kids, but the right. Okay. All right. So anyway, thank you. It gives me a little better idea of how the bill was put together. Um, I have a question, madam chair. Yes. Um, building bright futures, uh, based on at least the testimony that we heard the other day, they were involved in the, and there's two, weren't they Jessica? They did, you know, any of the drafting, not drafting, not drafting, but providing, uh, information for this bill over the last three or four years they've been providing information to us and to any, you know, to the advocates, um, as to, and honestly, one of the, um, alley is alley Richards from let's grow kids is on the advisory council. So their work in the communities and their gathering of data is available to everyone. And so in that way, you could say that they hadn't import, but they didn't write any of the pieces or they take a neutral role. So they wouldn't do that. They just make recommendations to us for policy choices. And Jessica, because, um, I don't, this maybe happened before you were on there. I think it did timing wise, but it was, uh, so maybe madam chair can answer this question. Didn't building bright futures, were they the sort of conveners and authors of the blue ribbon commission report? Oh, thank you for, we can see everybody. I looked up and oh, you magically all appear. Julie anticipates our every need. What I, I, so you, you heard Johnny flood mentioned the blue ribbon commission and several of our witnesses have mentioned the blue ribbon commission, which sort of this all started back like the blue ribbon commission is like six years ago or seven years ago. And that is what sort of started getting this getting this ball rolling, um, outlining sort of what children needed to be successful. I forget the history in terms of who came first, whether building, whether building bright futures, I can't remember whether that was a outgrowth or whether that was put into place. I mean, the legislature recognized on some level that there needed to be a public private partnership and they were looking to, uh, to create a, a organization that was both connected to state government in some way as well as being independent enough so that independent of who was in charge, who was in charge of the legislature or who was in the executive branch so that they're information could be as data driven and as absent of political pieces as possible. Topper. Thank you. Um, I think it's important that we all read Katie put up the site for us and now it's gone. I don't know where it went. I don't know how I lost it, but I read through it quickly. I think we should read it to see what building bright futures is really responsible for that council. And, um, because I think it will help us in terms of, you know, these things we're talking about. Yes. So sometimes we should do that. I'm not going to do it tonight, Madam Chair, because I screwed things up last night with a meeting. We're not going to let you my, my, um, but we should. I really think we should look at because we may look at this bill and find out that, um, taking some stuff out. We might be better off. Yeah. And I would like to respond to Dane. What I'm concerned about is if we do one before the other in terms of supporting the industry and providing more assistance for families, if we support the industry, the cost is going to be so high. Unless we provide the assistance, the industry is not going to have anybody to take care of because the parents won't be able to afford it. I think it has to be done at the same time. Yeah. And, um, I think a big question, uh, that I think or information that would inform this that I'm interested in is what are the wait lists within all of the, these different childcare providers right now? I think I mentioned yesterday, um, a hundred infant wait list at the Burlington YMCA. And so, um, but I agreed just the, the process is something I'm, I'm, I'm really interested in as far as, um, how do you roll it out in a way that works best for, for everybody involved? Yeah. And, and then you get the enrollment question as opposed to attendance. I figured what that was. And you also have the actual cost piece. So, I mean, so we have, I mean, we would, so, I mean, I think we have some sort of big discussions because on some level, um, Dan, what you, in this conversation that you, that Dan, you and Topper are having and that others have added to, um, in terms of the role of the state, in terms of the role of making childcare, um, ensuring that it's affordable and as opposed to using the, using CCFAP. So, um, who are we talking about? Are we, you know, are we going to have a limit or not? I mean, are we, so some, I mean, so there's that kind of, how, how, how, I guess, how far to a public good are we, are we moving toward? Can we move toward right now? You know, when we, when we think of, I mean, unless, and, or is that something that will be what the, what one of the studies, as they look at financing, is that something? So do we not, you know, do, you know, so it's, but what kind of direction there's that? And that I think is a fundamental question, Teresa, wasn't that something that you were, I'm not saying it very articulately, but was something that you were, you were also saying is something that we need to focus on. Yes, I think that's, that's sort of like one of the basic questions. And the financial study doesn't have that as an element because the bill supposes that there's access to all Vermont children. And so the, the financial study doesn't really address that, which does actually speak to Commissioner Brown's, I think, sort of main premise about how much is this going to cost before you make that policy decision. And, you know, so I think that that's something, yes, definitely, that we need to look at. And when I, I'm thinking about the sort of the priorities and, and the thinking about what Dane was saying earlier about the things that seem most important here in terms of access, affordable access. So looking at the CC FAP and then dealing with the workforce and what we pay this workforce and how we value this workforce as being right there with that. And then in the back of my head, I'm thinking like, okay, so yes, I agree with those two things. But then if we are not having a program that provides assistance to a broader group of people than by raising what we pay, which we should do, we are going to make it more unaffordable for people who are paying 100% right now. Do you understand what I'm saying? So if they're, if they're paying $15,000 a year now and we do what, what really needs to be done for the workforce, you know, they may be paying $20,000 or $25,000 a year. I, you know, I just made the, don't, don't quote on any numbers. But, but that's, that's a very sort of real consequence of thinking about all this. So, yeah, there is, there are no easy answers, Madam Chair, unfortunately. Oh, I knew there was going to be an easy answer. I'm also thinking, I was thinking about something that Johnny said he, he, he was sort of, he referenced the in-home provider as he was talking about the educational requirements and what is considered excellence or what is considered quality. And he expressed some concern that he noted that that might end up having some home providers leave the system and therefore having there be less available. Well, which is one, yeah, Madam Chair, which is one of the reasons that, you know, I'm not sure I'm in favor of putting in a minimum education requirement, you know, kind of thing. I mean, that what we heard from Melissa is that stars recognizes education as a component. Carl agrees with you, by the way. I know. I saw him get a big smile on his face, I don't know. But I think, you know, what I heard Melissa say was they're actually, you know, in their process, they're looking at, she didn't say they were doing it yet. But I wrote down her words and I will be able to find them right this moment. But they're not just looking at education. They're looking at experience and they're looking at other factors in terms of identifying what quality means. And we did hear, we heard both things yesterday when we were talking to child care providers, you know, we heard, yes, it definitely matters. And we heard, yes, but, you know, there's plenty of people out there who are providing excellent quality care and don't have, you know, advanced degrees, or even degrees. So I think that we're not going to increase access if we rule out a whole chunk of people, that's not going to increase access. So we have to be really careful about that. I agree. I agree with Teresa. That's the first time this session. For who? For you to agree with me. I mean, it's the first time you said anything good. I'm just teasing. I agree with you a lot. You know it. You know I agree with you a lot, so. Oh, God. Help us all. You know, it's an interesting sidebar to this. What? The testimony that we got, people were talking about increasing the pay to at least what public school, I think you use the term the kindergarten teachers make. Well, when you talk to the teachers, they say they're not making enough money. You know, they their pay is way low compared to whatever. So they're asking us to bring their pay to a point where the people in those jobs don't feel like they're being paid enough. Yeah. It's a good point, Dopper. I realized, Topper, as you're talking and what I'm continuing to wrestle with is I keep going from big like you really need to answer for ourselves some of the big questions, and then we can figure out the words and talk about that. And then I'm getting like, okay, okay, Chopper, when we're talking about this, what do we do? And so I'm going back and forth between the big and the little in my head in terms of that because as you were talking, then that brings me up to if these are not public employees, where else and if there are places and maybe maybe there are in terms of construction projects or transportation, I don't know. Where are there places where the state is not providing the service but rather providing a grant to an agency or like a bargaining agreement for personal care workers, Madam Chair, parent child centers, great. Don't they get a contract too? But they don't, the parent child centers setting a wage, setting a base wages. I think that's all I'm talking about, setting a base wage. Okay. The only, I mean, I think the only place that we do it right now is personal care attendants because they formed a union and we had, well, first the legislature had to pass the legislation to allow this new kind of union. Okay. Yeah. And I think that, and we heard different, we heard actually most people agree that that would be okay as long as you pay for it. The child care providers yesterday, I think maybe the one I read through the testimony, I don't remember if it was from Carl's person or James's person, but one of those did not agree. But I think that the concept of setting a base wage is, I don't know, I struggle with it a little bit to be honest, but I haven't formed, I guess I haven't formed a total opinion about it. Well, no, I mean, I haven't either. And this was an example of how I go from big to little. And now Dane's going to rescue me because he's either going to change the subject or and I actually need to sign off in two or three minutes. So, but I just want to say last thing, looking at another thing that Melissa mentioned, kind of a catch 22 where CC FAP, you can't compensate a provider more than what they charge. And yet we're, and so I think that the market is in a funny kind of place where when do they start increasing rates? How do you adjust the CC FAP reimbursement as a result of that? But yeah, so again, I will just reiterate while I'm here. If there's anything to push, not push back to 2023, I would love for us to start looking at cost of care being included along with the CC FAP improvements because it seems complicated, but I would really love to work on that. Well, good. And Dane, you helped focus, which is because we are supposed to, we have an agreement to sort of end at three, and many people probably need to go other places. So when in the last two weeks, you had lots of homework and alone, you know, around with your, with your budget buddies to go and become experts in all of your non-free time. If you can begin to live and breathe this bill and this issue, because that's really what we're going to, mostly what we're going to be doing next week. We are hopefully getting, we're looking for some testimony from, and maybe Teresa said that from the treasurer, no, not from the treasurer. Yes, from the treasurer. From the treasurer and secretary of administration and joint fiscal in terms of some of those kinds of studies or whatever. And the, we've added to that list the agency of digital services. Because we've hearing some things. And I think that Jessica had a really good idea is for people to begin to make a list of what are their issues. And so that we can come in on Tuesday when we start to talk with what people's issues are. Jessica. So just as a final, that was what I was going to say was if we could have our issues maybe written down, it would help. And on the issue of equity, if everybody could just start thinking, because this is something that I've been going back and forth on and ask some questions on is this enrollment versus attendance, because that's an equity issue. And, but it's also an expensive issue, but it might make it cheaper on the other end if everybody was paying as enrolled. So anyhow. Okay. And actually, if, if just so that I can maybe figure out a way of putting it all on one sheet. If by eight o'clock Tuesday morning, you could send me your, your list of issues, then I can put it all in one. Okay, copper. I can't hear you and you're going to finish us off. You know, let me get my finger up there. I was going to say, could we have that link re sent to us so we could read it to the, to the building bright futures. And all of a sudden, it's on my phone again. Yeah, Katie sent it to us. So, okay, good. That's, that was my question. Miracles happen to offer miracles. I know, I mean, I know I'm, I'm like a whiz on this. But I was saying, wow, I just did some magic. Yeah. Anyway, thank you. Thank you, everyone. I think this ends our Friday afternoon.