 for the record, bring hair from the Legislative Council. As the chair mentioned, at the last committee on H57, you heard from the Vermont Medical Society and had a request to prepare an amendment that addressed the scope of the practice issue that was raised during that testimony. And you can see that amended here in draft 1.1. It would be striking the entirety of section one, which is the legislative intent section. I'm replacing it with this language. The language in yellow is new. The rest of it is the same as the version that passed the House. You can see that the changes provided that currently Vermont does not impose legal restrictions on the right to abortion. That's changed from currently Vermont does not restrict the right to abortion. And then the addition of the sentence healthcare practitioners providing abortion care in Vermont make determinations regarding the provision of safe and legal abortion within the scope of their practice and license, and in accordance with the relevant standards of medical practice and guiding ethical principles. And then there's a small change to the beginning of the next sentence, which is just that the General Assembly intends the fact to safeguard these existing rights. And that change is intended to reflect the scope of those rights as curtailed by that second sentence. And the remainder of the legislative intent section is the same, not the provision that it's not intended to interfere with the legislative power of the legislature or the judicial power of the judiciary or to contravene the federal pressure for abortion. Does Senator McCormick have a copy on this? Yes. Oh my, so any immediate thoughts? Looks. Looks. Looks. Yeah, it feels better. Yeah, it does. Yeah. It feels a lot better. Yeah. So, what play for Senator McCormick? Senator, as we discussed on Friday, to have some change made to the intent section of age 57. And so over the weekend, Bryn drafted the language that's in front of you. And I'm going to ask you to go through it one more time so that we're clear and so that you've had an opportunity to hear what the changes are in that section on the bill. Oh, do you mind Bryn, just going through one more time. Repetition serves us really well in there. So, as I mentioned to the committee, the changes, so this replaces section one, the legislative intent section just strikes it and replaces it entirely. But only what's in yellow is our reflect language changes from the version of the house. So the change in the first sentence is that currently Vermont does not impose legal restrictions on the right to abortion. That's a change from currently Vermont does not restrict the right to abortion. So that's intended to more accurately reflect that there are not legal restrictions imposed on this right. There may be restrictions within the medical practice that exists. The addition of the second sentence, healthcare practitioners providing abortion care in Vermont make determinations regarding the provision of safe and legal abortion within the scope of their practice and license. And in accordance with the relevant standards of medical practice and guiding it with principles. So that is a new sentence. And then the minor change to the third sentence is that the General Assembly intends this act to safeguard these existing rights, which reflects the scope of those rights as we're narrowly defined by the first two sentences. That's good. Yeah, that's so far so good. Okay, so what I think I would like to do with this is to allow for you to consider it overnight and we'll come back to it tomorrow. And then we can talk about where we are with the bill. That didn't take as much time as I thought. Where did all the H530s... All the H530s. Do you want me to let you know? I didn't page around. I'm not going to say anything right now. Will this change be going up online soon? Oh, absolutely. Yeah. No, we've seen it. We'll put it online. Thank you, Bryn. Thank you. I missed today. There's nothing we can do about it. So why don't you share with us what you have? I know that we've talked on Friday. Rich Westman and I both communicated with Katie over the weekend and then we had a short meeting this morning so we can try to get the semblance of a bill together. Katie McLean office of legislative council for the record. I did put a new draft together with the changes from this morning to get more out. And I think I should just hit send to Maya. I think I'm supposed to do this. Great. I'm tearing up entirely. So we have draft one and two. One and two, there we go. Okay. All right. So the first section is legislative intent. There's no changes to that section. The second change has to do with CC FAP. It's in the green books and there haven't been any changes to that section. The changes start on page three, section three. This is the CC FAP appropriation for fiscal year 2020. So we still have the 1.25 restoring the base. And then the change here is a 4.9 million appropriation instead of the 6.9 million appropriation. And so this, and this puts the market rates keep to the 2017 for existing powers. But then it bifurcates the preschool and school age. So for preschool age children, the market rate is 2012. And for school age, it's 2010. Well, that's just stuff on page four. That's on page four, yeah. So that is that change. Section four is the language about the existing stabilization grants. We're keeping that language that says that those grants are going away. That's 2.5 million. And instead there's a new grant program being created on page five, section 4A. And this is an ongoing program, grant program. And it's an infant and toddler child care provider grant. The new language says that there is established this new infant and toddler child care provider grant administered by the division for the purpose of enhancing reimbursement rates to child care providers serving infants and toddlers in underserved areas of the state. The division is to award grants to center-based child care programs with family child care homes that participate in the STARS program. In accordance with the formula set forth in subsection B. And B is the division is to calculate eligibility for infant and toddler provider grants on a quarterly basis. And in determining the eligibility, the division is to consider the average number of enrollees in center-based child care program and family child care homes receiving CCBAP subsidy. And also the average number of infants and toddlers enrolled in the center-based child care program or family child care home. The top of page six, subsection C, the division is to provide grants pursuant to this section as funds allow. Center-based child care programs or family child care homes receiving a grant shall remain in compliance with the division's rules, continue participation in STARS and maintain high enrollment of children receiving a CCBAP subsidy. So that's the ongoing language. And then the appropriation for FY20 is in section 4B. 1.25 is appropriated from the general fund to the division for the purpose of funding of this new provider grant. The next change has to do with the IT investment. Section five is mostly the same. The only change that didn't get bolded is at the top of page seven, subdivision one. It had read a project plan and timeline. It now reads an initial project plan and timeline. And then in section 5A, there's a few changes. First, in fiscal year 2020, we have, we still have, same thing that you looked at last week, 500,000 appropriated to begin. It used to say implementation of the project. Now it says development of the project plan that's established pursuant to section five. And then there's new language. Subsection B in fiscal year 2020, 1 million is appropriated one time from the general fund to the division to begin implementation of the plan. Then any unused funds from either the CZVAP appropriation or from the $500,000 in subsection A shall be reserved to begin implementation pursuant to section five. The next set of changes have that means there's a total of $1.5 million for the IT program that we're suggesting here. Yes, 500,000 is ongoing, I believe, in the 1 million is one time. Right. And that's how the reserve is built. So the next set of changes have to do with the various childcare provider incentives we have been looking at as it came over from the house. So there's a scholarship program and a loan repayment program. What I've done is I've deleted section six and seven of the bill to make it easier to compare the house version and the Senate version if we ever get there. But section six had contained the scholarship and repayment. And then section seven was the appropriation. Are you listening to our conversations? Yes. If we ever get there. If we ever get there. That's succeeding, I just summer and summer. Okay. Instead of section six and seven, section seven A creates a new grant incentivizing the childcare profession. So this language kind of takes a step back and makes money available for a variety of programs that incentivize childcare providers to enter and stay in the field. So in fiscal year 2020, 300,000 is appropriated from the general fund to the division for the purpose of establishing an incentive program that fosters an interest in the childcare profession among students, including students participating in the Dill education. That's something you talked about last Friday. The incentive program shall provide grants to fund a combination of paid internship opportunities, scholarships and hiring bonuses for childcare providers employed at a regulated privately operated either center-based program or family childcare home. In subsection B, the division is to administer the incentive program set forth in the section and adopt policies, procedures and guidelines for the implementation. Grants are available on a first come, first serve basis until the funds are depleted. In section subsection C, it says that an individual can simultaneously receive funds from the Department of Labor, Vermont Department of Labor to complete a paid internship in a regulated privately operated childcare home or center-based program while they're receiving funds pursuant to this section. Okay, remind me, this is one time. This is one time money. And then in, there's a new page nine. There's a new section seven B. This has to do with the technical centers. We had a conversation about this last Friday. In fiscal year 2020, 350,000 is appropriated from the child, excuse me, is prepared from the general fund to the child development division to facilitate the implementation of the council for professional regulations, child development, associate credential, curriculum, technical centers throughout the state. So that's to help get the technical centers caught up to speed and rolling out this curriculum throughout all of the technical centers. So, what, so wait, it won't cost that much to roll it out from the technical centers. So, if you could know how much. We don't know how much to invest in technical center development or finalizing this credential program. If we did, then we could take the rest of it and put it into implementation and providing funds. So, I guess my question is, does seven B require or incentivize the tech centers to participate? I think there were discussions about providing some incentives for them. I'm not sure education, the Department of Education is 100% behind the work of a requirement at this point. It's not saying that the technical centers must implement it, it's saying to facilitate the implementation. So, it's money to the commission to help. I would mainly use it as some technical assistance to them and maybe incentives for them to participate. Yes, okay. But then the other part of the money is to reward and provide funds for folks who have a certificate and then are employed or that's seven A, right? So, that was eliminated this morning that you had to have a tie in. We don't want to eliminate it unless we want as two steps. We want to have a step for, if you already have people who have the certificate, apparently they're you and Marcy's came or something, right? So, if they have that certificate then we want to be able to provide an incentive for them to continue to work in or to have a job or an internship. So, there's- Tell me about that. There's still language about having paid internship opportunities or scholarship to continue your study or a hired bonus but it's not, the conversation was about stepping back from the specific parameters around those programs and instead- So, the $350,000 it's here. That's not going to cost that much to do with us here. So, there's more than we need here. So, will that go up to seven A before those people with certificates? How will the access, how do we decide if we put that in? So, the conversation was about stepping back from the specific program parameters but what you could do is- That's in seven A. Yes, what you could do in seven B is add a subsection B and say any unused funds will go towards the programs, the grant program in seven A and you could either just leave it general any of the programs in seven A or specific and tie it to people who have completed the technical centers curriculum. I think the goal was to tie it in some way at least a portion of this to achieving a certificate. So, to encourage folks to A, go through the program in the first place and then B to get a job in the center. Okay, so we'll say in subsection B, we'll create a new subsection B in seven B. This is any unused funds are to go to the grant programs in section seven A specifically for people who have successfully completed the technical center curriculum. Yes. Okay. So then the question is, this is a huge number for this certification process. I think they probably can almost do it. They can almost do it with nothing but if they have the motivation to do that but if there are funds available, as Riva said, it would provide a center for them to get this work done. So, I'm actually looking at Riva and trying to figure out how much money would be required for a certification program to get itself going. Let me see if I can, I don't know that one with a detailed sample, let's see how much. Yeah, let's see. Okay, so it's this $350,000. We're not interested in having that go to all the technical centers around the state. We're more interested in having the ones that want to do this, to do it and have the bulk of the money go for incentives. So paid internships, I think they are. They are, yeah, okay. That could be really useful. Yeah, so maybe the division of the funds should be different, and I'm wondering if it's like $50,000 here and $600,000 there. Okay, I had no idea, but we'll hear about it. I'll put that as a place to work for now. So I'm gonna hear about a lot, so. I'd like to see a chart with the point of pay on what this final decision, I think, because when we saw this, this was a program where we were going to, families paid a percentage of their income for childcare, and then it didn't matter if they had one, two, or three kids in there. Yeah, we've got the CC-FAT, we're talking about the CC-FAT. It's like a scale, right, and I'd just like to make sure that, because we're only, you know, we're not bringing those up even present levels, the, well, the, all right, even the color of 2017, and yeah, I'm in the money committee. This is the longest up economy, and it hasn't been very up that we've seen here. We're due to do it down. I wanna make sure, you know, we did something obviously a number of years ago and haven't done anything since, because the money's been tight, till we reached the point where it wasn't worthwhile for people to put the kids in daycare because the cost was such a high percentage of their income. And I just wanna make sure that we're, that somewhere we say that it is our intent that these levels continue to rise with the market or that this is part of, that this is step one in what we envision as a moving towards. Can we put that in the intent? Yeah, but this is due to Senator Cummings I've spoken. Great. We're good with that. Yep. Well, that's good, I'm glad you brought that up. I mean, I think it's all in our heads, but, you know. Well, I mean, it was, it was just such, yeah, I mean, to me, that is the best place for families, for the economy, for everything that we could invest our money. And it is, but I've been here long enough to know we'll do one shot, we'll feel good. And we'll forget next year that we're supposed to, because there'll be other crime needs out there. Well, so according to our own chart, for a family that's a single parent that's only 15 years an hour, the subsidy will go from two, or the part that they have to pay will go from $250 to $165. So that's a good, that's a good direction. That's a good direction. So I'm, I am looking, I think that really the, that's the bulk of the changes. Mm-hmm. The other changes are just conforming changes about the report back. All right, so this is good. Yes, this is better. This is better. I'm sure you've got to be the easiest the far end of the hall. We're, we're getting better. We're not, we're like $750,000 away from what the house sounds. Six hundred. Huh? Six hundred. Six hundred. Well, only six hundred. Well, and we've done some work and we're, our goal of course is we're going to be looking at REACHA. We're trying to get something which will also help a lot of these people. Which will help a lot of these people. So it's a combo. All right, so Katie, thank you very much. You're welcome.