 And sounds like everybody has in front of them the instances of amendment to H 145 draft 1.1. So because this is an instances it's a little tricky to track the changes here, but the first instance of amendment is adding a phrase to section two, which is the section that contains the law enforcement use of choke hold crime. So, the language that's added here makes it clear that any choke hold done by law enforcement that's done in violation of the standards. The standards for law enforcement use of deadly force would be an element of that crime. So, I think that the chair described this as a technical amendment because the bill as you know also makes some changes to the justifiable homicide statute which makes it clear that justifiable homicide applies. If a law enforcement officer uses a choke hold in compliance with the standards. So, but I think again I think that the request from DPS was really to make it perfectly clear that that this crime does not apply if a law enforcement officer is employing a choke hold in compliance with the standards. So by adding those words in violation of that is when a law enforcement officer could be charged under the crime, as long as all the other elements are satisfied, including that the person suffered serious bodily injury or death. So that is, that's the explanation for the first instance of amendment. I'll hold here to see if there are questions about that. Yeah, so bring just want to make sure so page six. I just want to the bill as as pass when I make sure. Yeah, we're on page six so this would be adding the words in violation of 20 vs a 2368 C6 online 13. So, in subdivision be of the crime, it would read a law enforcement officer acting on the officer's capacity as law enforcement, who employs a choke hold on a person in violation of 20 vs a 2368 C6 that causes serious bodily injury or death of the person shall be imprisoned, etc. Thank you. Any questions for bring on that time. Thank you. I know we're not there yet but is is everything being added here. Is that all of the request by DPS other than, I guess with the effect effective dates. So is that a question for me about whether this encompasses everything that DPS wanted. Yeah, I guess starting with the in violation of 20 vs a, and was that by request of DPS. I don't know if it's on a section seven line 10 in the amendment. Right so the next instance of amendment is was not their request this is like some. This is some cleanup really. Okay, which I can explain. Right, but the violation, the inviolation of 20 vs a was what they wanted. Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. I forward the message to the house judiciary that this is based on time so you'll see it. Right and then there wasn't there wasn't anything else you'll see there wasn't anything else in there that's not being being added so. Okay. So, go ahead from. The second instance of amendment strikes out the last three section of sections of the bill, which are those three sections that were a little tricky to explain because remember what you're doing here is your amending amendments that have not yet gone into effect so your amending perspective amendments so that meant we had to do some tricky things with repeals and and amending effective dates. I just went about it in a different way because the bill as you passed it did include the justifiable homicide statute. So since that's included in the bill now. The way I've approached the former version of the standards and the justifiable homicide statute as they were amended and act 165 is to simply repeal the two provisions in act 165. The amendments for law enforcement use of force and the amendment to the justifiable homicide statute repeal those and repeal their effective dates. So if you see here in section seven that 2020 action resolves number 165 section one to and section five, those are those repeals. So, instead of what we're doing is we're just repealing what you did in 165. And then we're putting in the effective dates, which provides that the effective date section and the repeal section both take effect on July 1, and the rest of the act takes effect on September 1, which includes the law enforcement standards for law enforcement use of force and the justifiable homicide statute. And that date to September 1. Is that clear I know it's a little, it's a little like legislative council jargony what we're doing there but hope that that clears that up a little bit. Folks, and in terms of the September one, that was important to DPS that's just want to make clear that that is in there. Any questions on on this drafting. Tom your hand. I will say the second or the end of the amendment where I think Martin said it gets a little tricky. I'll just say in Bryn we trust. I agree. That might be my report tomorrow except I'm not allowed to use names but anybody else. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Bryn. Okay, so we do need to vote on this. So that Martin as the reporter of the bill can can report. To the body. So I would entertain a motion to treat the amendment as favorable. So that would be fine. So all those in favor of treating the amendment as. Friendly. Coach you voting. Thank you. All those. Opposed. Folks lower their hands. Second. And we could do it. We could do a show of hands. Either the icons or physical hands that that would be. That would be fine. So all those in favor of treating the amendment as. Friendly. Coach you voting. Thank you. Okay. Folks lower their hands. Okay. And I. Is Felicia the only one that's not here? Am I missing anybody? Do I need to record this? I think it's just Felicia. No, that's okay. It's being recorded by us being on. On YouTube. So that's, that's fine. Okay. So, so 10, zero, one in favor. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much. Okay. So. Great. I think. I think that is it. Okay. And sorry, everybody, about the pretrial services. I just, for some reason, I always had it as a Wednesday. But anyway. Then we're, it turns out we were actually on the floor. So, but it is recorded. So we can, we can watch it. And then tomorrow at nine o'clock, we're going to hear from Lee McGrath. So. Great. And Barbara. I welcome you and Felicia if you want to. You know, introduce. Introduce. Introduce. Yeah, I'll welcome him. And then if you want to, you know, If you and Felicia want to say a few words or, you know, whatever. But. But it's very easy to. To get him to. To be here. So that's great. Yeah. I'm pleased. I think people will find it interesting. Okay. All right. Good. Is there a reason that name is familiar? Lee McGrath. It's probably not that uncommon a name. Right. I know a lot of McGraths. Maybe that's it. That may be it. But Felicia heard him at a conference in DC that she went to. So I don't know if you were at that conference too. I don't know what it was, but. No, not me. Okay. Okay. Okay. Let's.