 Good afternoon. Welcome to the Vermont House Human Services Committee and today is Tuesday, May 4th and the first part of this afternoon's committee meeting is a walkthrough or explanation by legislative council on what the Senate did to our bill H171, 121, 171, 121, 121, which is the bill regarding childcare. Well, whatever the number is. 171. 171. 171. Sorry folks. Go ahead legislative council. I better stop talking. Good afternoon. Katie McLean office of legislative council. So the just this morning, the Senate proposal of amendment was posted online and I've put together a side by side summary and I was just finishing that up as the meeting started. So I'm going to pull that up and then I will send it to Julie after we go over it and I'm sure Julie will be able to post it. So let me see. Are you seeing a chart? Okay, great. So I thought it might be easier just to go over the concepts and then if you'd like to like the language we could do that as well. But sometimes it's easier just to kind of break it down into smaller conceptual pieces and then seeing the language on the page. So you'll see in H171, this was your child care bill. We have this column that was as past the house. This has a lot of details about what was in your version of the bill. And then of course, the next column is as past the Senate. So right at the top, you had the legislative intense section and you'll see that the Senate's version that they sent back. Although a strike all that section was the same as your version. Similarly, there were changes to the child care financial assistance program, making changes to have the co-mavants be for the whole family versus by child, increasing the upper income limit of the fee scale. And all of those changes were accepted by the Senate and the version they sent back to you was the same as the house version. Similarly, in section three, this had additional changes to the CCFAP program. And those changes in section three were the same as the version you sent to them. So the first three sections are the same. And then we get to section four. And one thing that Senate appropriations did was they tried to take all of the money out of the bill and put it into the big bill. So you'll see that subsection A, which was the appropriation of the 5.5 million from GF to the child development division to implement the child care financial assistance program. That whole subsection has been removed from the Senate version of the bill because the money is no longer in this bill. It's in the budget. So subsection A was removed. Subsection, sorry, section five was the bright futures information system section. This was the technology piece that was needed to implement the changes to the CCFAP program. And there was a subsection A that left the house that said that the funds for the modernization of the bright futures information system was located within the technology modernization reserve. That language was removed. And there was a new subsection A that was put in that says to the extent that funds exist in fiscal year 2022, the Department for Children and Families are to modernize the bright future system. My understanding is that money is in the budget and that they wanted to have a sentence recognizing that there was funding needed for this program and that the department would be directed to modernize the bright futures information system. So that is the change in section five, switching out the reserve for language to the extent feasible and fiscal year 2022. And I'm going to just make a change on my page so I can see my whole document. Okay. Section six was the workforce supports. If you recall, there were three programs set up in the house version of the bill with regard to scholarships for current providers, prospective providers, and there is also a loan repayment program. That language was all left intact. So the Senate version did not make any changes to section six of the bill. Section seven of the bill was an appropriation for the workforce support programs in section six. If you see in this subsection A, you'll see the breakdown of the different financial, the breakout for the different programs, the funding for the different programs. And under the Senate column, you'll see this subsection A was deleted. Again, this is the Senate Appropriations Committee taking all of the money out of the bill. So that section was deleted. The heading of that section was updated to no longer include appropriation. And there was renumbering, but subsection B was retained. Next in the bill was section eight. This was the repeal section for the workforce programs. If you remember, two of the three workforce programs were set to repeal as of July 1, 2026. That language remained the same in the Senate version. Section nine amended the existing section on building bright futures, powers, and duties. The House added language that building bright futures would look at the administration and operation of Vermont's child care systems. And you can see there are three changes made in the House version of the bill. And the Senate kept all of those changes intact. So their version of section nine is the same as the House version of section nine. The next two sections are really where we see the most substantive change from the Senate's version of the bill. So just to refresh your memory, I know it's been a while since we looked at this. There were two sections in the House version of H171 that dealt with funds coming into the state through the American Rescue Plan Act, the ARPA. And there were two, I've been calling them pots of money within ARPA that were directed for child care programming. One was the block grant and the other was stabilization funds. And so sections 10 and 11 treated each of those pots of money separately. So there's a section, section 10, that dealt with the child care development block grant, and then section 11 dealt with the stabilization funds. So in the House version of section 10, the bill left the House having language that directed DCF in coordination with building bright futures to convene a working group. And that working group was to be composed of mutually agreed to stakeholders. And then it went on to specify different stakeholder categories that were to be represented in this work group. And then the work group in subsection B was directed to make recommendations to the General Assembly to ensure that the use of the ARPA funds were effectively utilized to meet the immediate and future needs of Vermonters. And there was this list of all different items that the working group was going to consider. And then language that the working group isn't only limited to looking at this list, they can look at other items, other priorities, but these are lists of priorities that the working group should be looking at. So there is this list. And then a report was supposed to come back to the Appropriations Committees and Subject Matter Committees by November 30th of this year with their recommendations on spending this money. So that language is not in the Senate version of the bill. Instead there is link, the section was struck and in its place there is a report that is due on January 15th of this coming year. And that report comes from DCF to the same committees, Appropriations Committees and Subject Matter Committees describing how ARPA child care block grant funds were utilized. So kind of a change in perspective. So section 10 has passed the House is looking at recommendations for how to spend the money, whereas the language that is coming back from the Senate is a report on how funds were spent. So that is section 10. Section 11 is sort of the, in my mind, kind of the companion piece to section 10 in that they are both looking at ARPA funds. But again, this is a different pot of money within the ARPA funds that are coming into the state. This is the stabilization grants. Similar to section 10, the version that left the House created a working group and the working group was to make recommendations to ensure that the stabilization grants were fully utilized in a timely manner. And by September 1st of this year DCF was to have submitted a report to the Joint Fiscal Committee and to the chairs of Human Services and Health and Welfare containing the working groups recommendations. And upon receipt of this recommendation, the Joint Fiscal Committee was to have five days to approve or reject the working groups recommendations. And if the Joint Fiscal Committee was not going to act within five days, the recommendations would be deemed approved and DCF had authority to distribute funds according to the recommendations. And if the Joint Fiscal Committee rejects the recommendations within five days, it would have to hold a meeting as soon as possible to receive testimony from DCF. So section 11 has been completely deleted from the Senate version of the bill. However, there is language in the budget that is meant to take the place of this section 11, the budget as proposed by the Senate. And that language, while it doesn't have a working group component, it does say that DCF in consultation with stakeholders is to provide recommendations to both the chairs of House Human Services and Senate Health and Welfare and to Joint Fiscal Committee for spending this money. And I believe there's language about Joint Fiscal Committee approving those expenditures and I'd have to put the exact language to refresh my memory on that piece. So a similar concept, but the working group component has been removed and also the component of having JFC act within a certain number of days. Section 12 was a reporting requirement. This was the report on the attendance-based model versus the enrollment-based model that DCF was going to do. The Senate did not make any changes to this section. So this is the same language that the House sent over in section 12. Section 13 was the systems analysis study. There have been some changes here. If you recall, the House version that required Building Bright Futures to analyze and make recommendations on this list of items in the report was to be submitted by Building Bright Futures on September 1st of 2022. That has changed. So instead of Bright Futures, Building Bright Futures doing the work, instead we have them developing and issuing an RFP along with the chairs of House Human Services and Senate Health and Welfare to select an independent consulting entity with expertise in child care and early education to do this work. So that RFP would be issued by September 1st of 2021. And then the independent consulting entity that's hired, selected, would be submitting an analysis and recommendations by July 1, 2022, which you'll see is a few months earlier than was anticipated in the Senate version, excuse me, House version. One reason why this date was bumped up was because as you'll see in the next section, which looks at the financing study, some of the dates in the financing study were pushed up. So the idea in pushing the due date for this report up was that the individual who's doing the financing study would benefit from having the results of this system's analysis completed to give the person conducting the financing study, I think six months, to have this final analysis and recommendations to inform the financing study. So then we move to section 14. Here's the financing study. And you'll see that the dates have changed. So we have by January 1st, 2022, JFO consulting, contracting with the consultant in the House version. And then in the Senate version, you have a different date, July 1, 2022, is when JFO is contracting with the consultant. And then under the report section, if you remember, there were preliminary results that were coming in and then final results. And so the House version had preliminary results coming in November 15, 2023, but the Senate has preliminary results coming in December 1, 2022. So you'll see, because this date appeared in section 13 was moved up to July 1, 2022, that the financing consultant now has five months to utilize the system's financing report if they're submitting the preliminary results by December 1, 2022. And then the final report is coming in January 15, 2023. And the only change besides the dates to this section was that the final results would contain multiple financing options for public and private fund, excuse me, multiple financing options for public and private funding sources. So that was a language edition that was made in section 14 of the bill. Section 15 was language that really came from the House Appropriations Committee, and that was language that appropriations from the act that ARPA would be used to fund any appropriations in this act unless it was determined that ARPA couldn't be used, in which case General Fund would be used. And so that language was deleted by Senate appropriations. They took all of the money out of this bill, so this language was no longer necessary. So section 15 was deleted. And then we have section 16, the effective date section, and all of the effective dates have remained the same, although I'm seeing that we struck out section 11 and we still have an effective date. Let me check the Senate proposal amendment to see if it was caught on the actual proposal. So that brings us to the end of this. Excuse me, Katie. Carl, Representative Rosenquist, has a question. I was really just waiting. Katie was just done, so I had a, and then it's a sort of a general question. I probably should know the answer, but what is the advantage of money being taken out and putting in the budget? It seems a lot clearer when the money is in the bill that we're talking about these different things. I've never understood why they take money out and put it in the budget instead. I think you'll have to ask Senate appropriations for that. I might suggest it has something to do with their wanting to be, their wanting the appropriations committee to be in charge of all of the negotiations as it relates to funding of things in case there's a difference. I see. So it's more of a negotiating tactic than anything. If it goes to, I'm just curious about the overall thing, not necessarily specifically about ours, but in general, when they move something to. No, no, that's it. It's a good question. I've been a legislator for a while and this seems to be a new in the last couple of years process. It reminds me of the federal process where you and in some other states where they pass bills that basically are meaningless until the budget passes. That's not that's not the case here, but I'm sorry, Carl. No, I was just going to say one final thing in the paper this morning. It says state legislature passes ambitious childcare bill. So they think it's already done, but obviously we have to approve this amendment. Right. Okay. Thank you. And just so folks know there was the speaker in pro tem had a sort of press availability and I was asked whether we were going to approve the Senate amendment and I said I can promise there won't be a committee of conference and we'll either concur or concur with further amendment. So I made no promises that we would accept it point, you know, without any kind of concerns. But I thought whatever the differences are could be resolved that way rather than a committee of conference. Representative Wood, then represent Rumsted. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I've seen the language in the appropriations bill. And I guess this is a question that's sort of along the lines of represent Rosenquist. I don't really understand why we don't have that language in the bill. And because it seems it seems a little bit inconsistent with section 10. At least in my mind, they don't seem to like totally line up and I realize that there's sort of two pots of money, you know, to just to refresh committee members, there's two are pots of money related to childcare. And I realize one has certain sort of strings attached to it about 50% of it has to be spent by a certain date and all of that kind of stuff. So this is more of a question, I guess it's not I'm not I'm not expecting an answer, but that's that seems it seems inconsistent to me without I guess I need to think about a little bit more in section 10. I'll just be frank about a section 10. I'm not okay with section 10. Section 10 just has the department telling us how they spent the money. And it's too much money for there not to be some policy guidance by the legislature. So that's, that's a question mark for me. And then in section 13, the beginning of the section talks about birth through age five. And then later on in the section, it talks about the language that we had, which had it broken out birth through five and then up to 12 in the second. So I was curious about that. And section 11 is still in the effective dates, Katie, at least in the bill that I'm looking at. So those are those are my sort of immediate things that pop into my head. Thanks. Representative Bromstead. I am. Thanks. Thanks. I, I wondered about section 10, whether or not there's anywhere where they are going to any language at all, Katie, where is Katie with us? Oh, yeah. Where they are on. I mean, we had that great list of things for the committee to consider. And so I wonder if DCF might still consider that list was my kind of question. It looks like there's nothing in language. And I don't know what the conversation was, but that would be a question I would have for Senator Lyons or, or whoever. Maybe this was done by appropriation. So it would be Senator Kitchell. It seems like we're sending them off with an, with, with the, we are sending the administration off with a lot of power, even if we just asked them to consider those things that it would make me feel better. The other thing is I heard about new funding for a promising pre-apprenticeship program that was $100,000 in ARPA funds, but I don't see that here. That was added to the workforce development piece, but maybe because, so they're going to designate that one type of ARPA funds to be spent on something specific, but yet they didn't want us to designate some ideas. So I great, Nolan's raising his hand so maybe he can help me on that one. Hi, for the record, Noel and I all joined fiscal office. Yeah. So in the budget in section E318.3, unless anyone wants to write that down, that's where the money for the stuff is. So the seventh or 700,000 for the current prospective early childhood providers, they've lumped them together, the 300 and the 400. There's the 1.8 million for the early childhood student loans. And then, yes, there's $100,000 shall be transferred to the Department of Labor with a pre-apprenticeship program and early childhood education provided by Vermont Career and Technical Education Centers. So that made me think maybe there's a way for us in the work that the appropriations, our Appropriations Committee is doing to add in, to pull out some money for some of the things that we've put in that list that we think are important just like they put 100,000 towards this program. And it wouldn't impact us concurring. So anyhow, just an idea I put out there. I mean, I do think that we, we, the Royal Way, a group of members of the committee need to connect with Kimberly and around what is happening with the Appropriations Committee since a bunch of this money is, I mean, since this is now in the budget and the house had a different, at the time the budget left the house, they had a different process for expending or deciding where to expend ARPA funds than what the Senate had. And I don't want to speak for the Appropriations Committee because I have no idea whether, as time has passed, they have shifted how they want to do that. And to follow up, you have Stephanie coming in on Thursday. And she could also help you understand what the Senate conversations were around this. Good. Thanks. Although, although we might have to get her in early, we might have to do some work with her earlier or, or delay, just because, just because I said on the floor of the house that we would know what we were doing by Thursday afternoon, we can always delay. Representative McFawn. Thanks, Madam Chair. I too have a problem with Section 10. Pretty much the same problem Teresa has. We spent a lot of time on that. And we just to say, tell us how you spent it doesn't, doesn't go with me. We were semi specific, but I thought very deliberative in that section. And just to wipe it out, I'm not, I'm not agreeable to that at all. I also, I have to read it again in terms of Section 13 and 14, their changes. It appears it's changing and changing dates and moving things up. And I think we were told that it couldn't be done in that period of time. And that's why we set the dates the way we did. But I want to take a closer look at it. But in Section 15, they're talking about both the general fund money and the aqua money. And I'm saying, okay, it doesn't specify where the money is going to come from. You know, I think in the budget, but what money are they using? Well, we have, we have the money expert. Now with money expert, he was next to you, but now he's at the bottom that perhaps can answer that question. On my screen, I'm on the top, just for the record. I'm right next to you. Oh, you're in the, you're in the, you're in A1 cell there presented on the funding for the studies, the dates removed up. If I recall part of the reason, I mean, yes, there was conversations earlier on around timing. There was further conversations about timing, but I think also part of it was that this committee was not to spend money in fiscal year 22 and put it off for 23. That might have been part of the conversation as well. And the Senate felt that it was important enough to move the dates up. We worked with them to try to come up with a timeline of, okay, that the building bright future study would be done. And then Jeff, I would have that study to build on when we did our, so that was part of the conversation and the timing. So they were willing to spend the money and we had had further timing to think about how those pieces would fit together. So that's kind of why the timing, maybe Katie could fill in a little bit more. She was there as well, but Katie, can you help us? I think a lot of Nolan, I think a lot of the conversation was wanting the information from the studies sooner and looking what was feasible in terms of moving up the dates to get the financing study faster. So there was a lot of conversation with JFO about how to make it feasible to kind of accomplish both goals of getting the information, you know, the financing study completed earlier and creating a timeframe that was workable for getting an independent consultant on board and giving that person enough time to complete their work and to have access to the other, the completed section 13 study to inform that person's work. And then on section 10, that I believe that change was made by Senate appropriations and not in Senate Health and Welfare. And I think that had, well, I'll let them speak to why they did that, but I think timing might have been part of it as well as well. I'll let them speak to it, or Stephanie might be able to speak to it. Okay. Chopper, do you have another question right now? I do. So then we as a group would assume that in section 14 that JFO was 100% okay with moving the dates up. Yeah, we're fine with that. It was, I think our earlier, earlier versions where you were going to have us doing it by this year, but I think we were having those conversations preliminary. But I think the current language of current timing works for us. All right, okay. We could do it. That's fine because in the original one, we were making sure that you could get it done. Yeah, I think earlier conversations where the timing was too soon and then we pushed it off two years. Okay. The timing that works in the bill now is, it works for us and it works the way that we can build off of the other study. Okay. And then section 15, where does the money come from? Section 15. So I'm just trying to keep up with the various. Well, and that was the the piece that House of Appropriation originally added that ARPA funds were to be used unless they couldn't be used in which case general funds were to be used and Senate appropriations took section 15 out because all of the money was taken out of the bill. So I think the question is we're no longer specifying where in this bill where money is coming from because there is no money in the bill. Yeah. And so the five million that was in the first part that was in the governor's budget, that's put in the base. And then the other stuff I said, like I said, that's all on section E318.3. Except I take that back. The workforce stuff is in section E318.3. And then the building might break futures appropriation is a one-time money. Okay. We might want to write this down too. It's in section B1106A7. And that's basically that's basically a section is basically all one-time general fund appropriations. That's money to hire the independent consultant. Okay. And so in section 13, Nolan. I'm sorry, what's that? That's the money to hire the independent consultant in section 13, correct? Yeah, that's the building break. That's the building break futures, correct? Tapper, is your hand still up for? I don't know. Not now. Jessica, and then I want to give, no, we have Nolan for like five. You have me for five more minutes and I have to go away. But I can come back. You're still. So I just have a quick follow up to Nolan before you leave. Is, so I thought building bright futures, the $261,000 was base budget to the base budget. In the Senate budget, they have it in time. So this is this is 200. I don't know about the 261. This is the 200. That's for the systems. Right. That's the systems analysis. But the 261,000 is to the base budget. And it looked to me like that's in the budget too. Did you think that can be too? Well, that wasn't in this bill. So I'm not sure I haven't followed it. It's in, it's in section. Let me see. Building bright futures. I don't believe that was in the spell. Yeah, it was. That was a big win. I remember. You know, March was like years ago. Yes. I guess it's in the regular, it was in the Senate house proposal. I mean the human services, the health and welfare, sorry. I've got so many bills sitting in front of me, but I don't see it. I'm looking at my previous bills and I don't see the 261. So Jessica, was it actually part and parcel of H171? We're hearing probably not, but what was it in fact part of the house past budget? Yes. And when I talked to Kimberly, she thought it was in the appropriations budget as well that they had put it there. Right. So that wouldn't be here. Okay. It would be in, so that's something, that's the next part of what we have to focus on, which is our parts of the budget. But right now, we're just looking at what was actually, how H171 differs from how it left us. Okay. Okay. Okay. Nolan, before you leave, and he's left. No, I'm there. Oh, okay. Before you leave. Folks, we have, he has sent us an updated or a revised joint fiscal, I mean fiscal note based on the Senate version. Are there, is it too much to start going over? Should we have you go over it another time? Well, I just sent Sorsha email finding out if I have more time with you guys. Oh, hopefully, because if Ways and Means is running behind, it looks like they're still going on education. So I can start if you'd like. Okay. Well, let me, let me first ask, because both of you and Katie have hard stops. Do we have other questions right now for Katie? Because Katie has a hard stop as well. Katie, thank you for the side by side. And if you send it to Julie, it will be on our committee webpage so we can take a look at it as part of our homework and things like that. And we'll be circling back to it after we look at it also tomorrow morning. And so, Katie, you know, if you need to run and do other things, feel, please do. Okay. Thank you. I'll see you tomorrow morning. Okay. So Nolan. You get me for five more minutes, but I was quick. So if, oh, Julie gave me access. All right. Let me just pull something up real quick. I'll find it. There it is. All right. Do you guys see the fiscal note? Or you see? Yep. Okay. So if you guys, if you go to the fiscal note and go to the last page, I have a little chart. And I think this lays it out. I hope it lays it out cleanly. So you can see that, you know, for the CCFAP stuff that was in section two and three of your bell, that's in the budget. On the Senate side, the scholarships, the two scholarships, the 300, the 400,000, for a total of 700. That's now in section E318.3 of the budget. And they've lumped those together as are the 1.8 for student loans. That's also in section E318.3. So that's all there. And then the systems analysis study is in one-time money. And that's in section B1106A7. And essentially, what I would say is that in terms of my fiscal note, there's only really a $200,000 difference in that they funded the Building Bright Future in 22. And your bill, you had not, in you, it's up to structure for how ARPA, because you didn't have all the information you needed at the time around ARPA. And so I would say, really, all the money is there, except they added a little bit more. And then, of course, there's language, which you have talked with Katie about the difference, which is the other area. But in terms of the money, it's all there, one form or another. And they didn't really tinker with the scholarship at all in terms of the language. And then they tinkered a little bit with the system analysis study and the financing studies, but essentially, the money sections remain intact and $200,000 more. So Nolan, I don't remember. When we passed H171, did we leave off funding for the joint fiscal office financing study as well? I see that as amended by the Senate, we'll have to make that appropriation next year. Did we do the same thing? Yeah, you had it pushed out even farther. Okay. So they moved everything closer. Again, I think the conversations were around timing and funding. And I think part of it was the conversation was still evolving when we were having this discussion, your committee, and I think that it evolved further in the other committee. And there was a big push to get everything sooner. And the funding was there. So thank you. Mike, two seconds. I hope that was helpful. It's very helpful. It points out those things. And I think that it can give us a start of where we want to have a conversation and who's going to do what kind of research and who do we need to talk to. So thank you, Nolan, very much. Glad to help. And thanks for being so available and anticipating our needs by saying, I have a new joint fiscal note. So thank you. So committee, if I recall, it was Jessica and Topper and Teresa who were our team on this bill. Am I my memory correct? So I think we need to do some figuring out around what some of this means. And I'm wondering who wants to talk to maybe Ginny. You'll have to talk louder than that, Jessica. Yeah, sorry. I'm happy to do that. I can talk to Ginny. I also maybe we could set up a time for the three of us to meet with Kimberly. I feel like it would be helpful for us to do that before we talk to Ginny. Okay. Just to make sure that we all are understanding what we think that we just went through and heard and sort of seeing where they're at. Yeah. I think that would be helpful. I may be unnecessarily complicating things, but since this has to do with ARPA money and the house at one point had passed a budget with a way of how the house was going to deal with ARPA money, I would ask, we need to get from my point of view clarity from appropriations that were in sync. That we're not saying, oh, this is horrible when appropriation says this is the kind of thing we're going to do in terms of some things or not. But in terms of what folks have heard thus far, what are your, I mean, we've heard from Teresa and we've heard from Topper. What are some other and from Jessica around some questions or concerns? What are other questions or concerns we have? Madam Chair? Yeah. Yes. I haven't looked through all of my emails, but I know there's one from the administration and there's one from the community action agencies. And I want to, they're both quite lengthy. I've read both of them, but I need to read them again and absorb them. Okay. So I think the three of us need to look at them and understand what's going on there to make sure that we're, we understand what they're talking about and also understand what we had intended in 171. Okay. And to see if it's in that bill. Okay. I haven't looked at my email to see if I have those as well. But thank you. I think for me, it's on the, I understand what you're saying, Madam Chair. For me, it's not as much about, you know, the Appropriations Committee, I don't know, from my perspective can figure out with Senate appropriations how they want to spend and where and if it's going to be general fund or if it's going to be our part of all that kind of stuff. That is not, honestly, not as much of a concern for me to make sure that it's the things that we intended to fund or fund it in. That appears to be the case. And then the second thing is really about community and stakeholder input about how this massive investment and resources would be spent. And I, you know, there's that piece that's in the budget, but that's only part, it's only half of the money. It's not all of the money. And so, you know, that would, that would be just on first blush, sort of the biggest thing for me. But like Topper said, I have to go through and read, you know, compare what passed out of the house, you know, word by word, I really appreciate what Katie did on the side by side. That's very helpful. But we have to also look at the language and the budget and make sure all the pieces fit together. Okay. Yeah, I agree. It's going to take some, I mean, we've got the side by side from Katie and the Senate passed 171. I think it's in our, if not on Fridays, it's in today's calendar. The budget, I'll probably look on Joint Fiscal Page to find it in terms of that. So this, I mean, this will be one of our, probably our biggest figuring out between the House and the Senate, between now and the end of the session, this and then looking, making sure we're seeing what happened to our recommendations that actually made it through the process in terms of the budget, what happened to them on the Senate side and things like that, just so that we know where things are. I want to say, and other than that, the Child Youth and Family Advocate Bill seems to be solidly in rules despite the fact they had said that they wanted it and wanted to work on it. And I'm not quite sure what's happening with buprenorphine. If you listen to the press, it seems like it was going to be moving. It still seems to be in rules. So we'll just see what happens. That said, in terms of the whole general concept of prescribing buprenorphine, the federal government has made some changes in who can prescribe buprenorphine. And prior to this time, any a physician and whatever who wanted to prescribe buprenorphine had to take a eight hour course or whatever, and then maybe other health care providers who can prescribe had to take a 24 hour course of study, and that has been changed. The Biden administration has lifted those restrictions and lifted the restriction that the providers have to in the providers offices, the physician and provider offices no longer have to indicate that they have counseling available or something like that. So I guess the point of doing that was to ensure that buprenorphine was going to be perhaps more readily available through doctor's offices and other prescribers. We'll see what happens. And then Teresa, I don't know what's happening to the bill that you reported. Because the Senate committee seemed to be the Senate morning committee seemed to be slowing down. That's all I've got to report, Madam Chair. That's what you said. Okay. Much to my dismay. Okay.