 Welcome, everybody. It is Tuesday afternoon. This is the General Housing and Military Affairs Committee of the Vermont House of Representatives. And we have two things on our agenda today. We are going to address age 750, which is the bill that we passed out of this committee just before the break, which allowed for the Adjutant General to be able to hire through his process a provost marshal, what's called a provost marshal. And we sent that bill to the Senate and they have returned it to us with with concurrence with further amendment. They have two amendments that I believe I shared with you a link to last night. But first, we're going to start with Sivan Katel from the Spirits Council and the owner of of Stonecutter Spirits. And I just wanted to welcome him because he'll be transitioning, I think. And he just wanted to share some thoughts with us about the work that we've done and some of the concerns that he may have of us moving forward in this trade. So Sivan, welcome to the committee again. And it's good to see you. Thank you. Greatly appreciated. And probably more of the former than the latter of the two things he just mentioned. Hi, everyone. Thank you for having me. I asked Chair Stevens for a chance to say thank you to the committee on my way out from the Spirits Council. As most of you know, Stonecutter Spirits hit tough times last year, you know, pre-COVID. And we ended up closing our restaurant in Burlington and our tasting in Middlebury and working pretty hard on a restructure ever ever since. And that that work is going well for very difficult work. But practically speaking, whether the brand survives, which I really hope it does, it would do so in new hands. Or if not, either way, by the time that you folks return in January, notwithstanding the other sessions that are potentially coming up before then, by that point, I will no longer be representing the Spirits industry as part of the still Spirits Council. You know, once I'm not part of Stonecutter or once Stonecutter is not part of me, I will be politely stepping down from the Spirits Council as well. And all of my industry members know that they asked me to stay on through the end of the session. So that was really the plan in the first place anyway. Okay, time out, Siobhan, just for a second here. We have a caller on the line. And I can you identify yourself please so we can write your name up on the screen? Is this General Knight? It is General Knight. How are you, sir? Good. We're going to put you back on mute though. And we're going to change your name so we knew who you are. And we're going to, we'll be with you in a few minutes. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thanks, Siobhan. Sure. All that is to say, I wanted to thank the committee. You know, by the time you folks properly return at least next year, I won't be representing the DSCV anymore. And I've really appreciated the opportunity for all of us to work together over the years. I've loved this work. I really enjoy policy work. It's been wonderful to be part of all of the various legislation that you folks have put together that has helped not just the alcohol industry, but many industries. That includes, you know, when I've been in the committee advocating for paid family leave and other issues that that were germane to my personal experience here in Vermont and where I've tried to help where possible. And I'm not a Vermont or born erased. I moved here for work, but I stayed here because I loved it. And when I have conversations with, you know, friends who are still in New York City and all those folks who say, well, you know, you're going to stay in Vermont. The answer is always yes. And this committee and what you folks represent is a large part of that. And the fact that that I've been able to be a small part of the various policies that you folks have put together that have helped grow industries, right? I mean, spirits is a very cool and, you know, highlighted industry. But the real idea that we were growing and that we were growing because we could actually work with the legislature to figure out what things can and should be changed. And, you know, it's open conversations, not hidden motives. It's just actual real collaboration. And that's been a wonderful experience for me. So, you know, if I ever one day do follow my neighbor by wrong into public service, you folks would all have played a large part in in helping me be even interested in that in the first place. So just a personal thank you for me. I've really liked this work. I'll still be advocating for family for expanding healthcare, all the other parts that I believe in strongly and the other boards I'm on. And certainly if there's any questions, I'm happy to address them. But for me to all of you, thank you folks. Well, I appreciate that. And I think we all do. Thank you for not yelling at us today. But say that for another day because your work, you know, as you've as you've entered the building as an advocate and as a business owner and working for towards your business, you've been you've acted in respectful manner. You've understood the process. You've learned the process. You've worked with us in ways that I think really moved the industry along and added a added a perception of the I mean, you're one of those God forsaken young brahmanters that we claim never moved to the state. So, you know, you did and and you've been doing good work. So and I and I if I remember correctly, you're still on the board at Porter Hospital. So you're still in the in the fire of not not not only Porter, but I'm also on the board of the Health Network. And I so appreciated the opportunity to be a part of all that hard work in these crazy scary times. Yeah, so keep it up. From my perspective, you know, your opinions on on, you know, whenever you need to testify on any of the things that interest you, make sure you you give us a call. I just wanted to say thanks for the reliable information that you were always able to provide to the committee. And I think that facilitated the work that we got done on behalf of the distillers. And just for the opportunity to say thank you to, you know, my my friend neighbor and constituent, but also someone I've worked on boards with with Main Street Alliance. I've been working with UCVON is honestly the involvement that we engaged into the level that we have is one of the reasons I was inspired to actually run for the seat that I now hold. So, you know, we've kind of threaded a lot of this commitment together into like a unified approach. So thank you for that for me. Well, thank you. Thank you all. You're you're you're making me blush and it was meant to be my thank you to you folks, not the other way around. Well, I mostly just want to thank you for like not pressuring us for the time while we were working on the CRF proposal and waiting for a low tide moment like today. Because as it's not only the it's not even the end of session, but it's the end of session in spades in so many different ways. But it is and it's been a unique place. But no, again, thank you so much for really for showing up. You know, it's it's really this work can't get done without people who want to see change made. And and you've represented your issues incredibly well. So thank you. Thank you all. Keep up the good work. I'll be rooting for you. And no golfing today. Too hot. Too hot. All right. Thanks so on. With that will. So we have General Knight on the line. I have a note from Ron saying the Senator Hardy may be late and the attorney who wrote these amendments is Damian. We haven't seen Damian. Do you remember Damian? We haven't seen Damian and at a dog's age or two. But I guess what I wanted to just sort of preface it and and we'll do this a little bit piecemeal. We'll talk to General Knight about his impressions of what the of what the amendments were while we have him. And then we'll hear from Senator Hardy and from Damian as they as they come aboard. But if you remember age 750 and again, I think I shared the link last night with for the amendments. And so basically the amendments from what I understand of the amendments, the amendments do not change the bill that we did. They don't change any of the interior text of the bill we sent. But it adds this language that asks for a Senator Hardy will be here in a second. And so there will be a so it'll add language that adds a sexual assault reporting issue, which has been an important issue for many folks in the in the state house to get some form of of more better. We had a bill that actually asked to form a sexual assault officer through a different way. And then there's other language that I'm not as familiar with on the officer part of it. So actually, I'm going to backtrack now that Senator Hardy has joined us General Knight. Thank you for your patience. And I'm going to ask Senator Hardy to join us and tell us about the amendment. Right into the right into the fire Senator Hardy, it just, I gave a very 50,000 foot overview of what the amendment does. If you could be precise, we don't have Damian yet to explain it from a legalistic perspective, but we do have General Knight on the line as well. But if you could, if you could do this and then you can get back to where you need to be. That would be great. That would be great. Great. Thank you, Tom, Representative Stevens and the committee for having me. It's really a pleasure to see all of you in in sort of person. I miss seeing everyone in the state house. I'm just pulling up the amendment. We just finished on the floor. So trying to get organized. So, no, wrong amendment. Here we go. Okay. The first part of the amendment would add language to the duties of the position of the Provost Marshall and the Assistant Provost Marshall with respect to investigating sexual assault charges in the National Guard and assisting local law enforcement or state law enforcement agencies in those investigations. As you well know, because I know your committee has done a lot of work on this issue, sexual assault and harassment is an issue. Broadly speaking in society, but it's an issue that has been prominently sort of discussed with with respect to the National Guard. So my intent with this amendment was to make explicit that the creation of these positions would deal with investigating allegations of sexual assault in the National Guard. And then the second part of the amendment is to make explicit that while the Provost Marshall and the Assistant Provost Marshall would have statewide authority because the National Guard is a statewide institution, they would only have this authority with respect to the National Guard and the issues within the National Guard itself. They would not have civilian authority or have statewide authority with respect to anything beyond the National Guard. However, and this is what became a little bit complicated in the Senate was there is a distinction between the position and the person who may hold the position. I believe and General Knight can speak to this more, but that the intent was that these positions may be held by members of the Guard who are themselves law enforcement agents, perhaps members of a local police force who are members of the Guard as well. So it's not the intent to limit what that they are able to be law enforcement agents outside of their work in the Guard, but only as a Provost Marshall or an Assistant Provost Marshall, the duties of those positions are for within the Guard themselves. The person may hold two different positions, just like many of us hold two different positions. We may be a legislator and a restaurant owner, for example, but those are separate positions that the same person holds. So that was the distinction. Once we clarified that it was the person versus the position, there was no opposition to this just to make sure that in creating these law enforcement positions, it was clear that they were for law enforcement within the internal operations of the Guard. So that is basically the amendment. And once we clarified those, I believe they passed unanimously in the Senate. Okay, I have a question from Representative Wallace. Yeah, thank you. I apologize, I don't have the amendments in front of me. I just so I want to go to that last point. The original bill says that they would be level three law enforcement officers with the same capabilities and immunity as the Vermont State Police. So your amendment changes that? No, it does not change. They would still be level three law enforcement agents, however, and would have all of the capabilities and immunities of the level three law enforcement agent, which my understanding is necessary to carry out the duties that are listed in the bill with respect to investigation and cooperation with outside law enforcement. So it would not change that. It would simply say that those duties and powers as a provost-martial or an assistant provost-martial would only be exercised with respect to the internal aspects of the Guard, that they couldn't then use those powers and duties outside of the Guard for civilian purposes. Unless, of course, the person themselves is a law enforcement agent, in which case they would exercise those duties in their other capacity as a police officer for the town of Montpelier or the city of Virginia or whatever it is. So that was the distinction that's important to make. There may be a time in the future that the Guard hires somebody for these positions that is not an outside law enforcement agent, and that person would just have those powers and duties within the Guard and would not be, they could be a landscaper or a restaurant owner, sorry, picking on that because I know what he does. So that was the distinction. So no, they would still be a level three and have those powers and duties, but only within the Guard itself. Okay, so it pertains specifically to their performance of duties within the Guard. And just for clarification, because I might get asked this, this means then they could investigate any potential crime involving a Guard member, whether that's on Guard property or not, or military property or not. Yeah, I believe so, as long as they're acting within the duties of the Guard and that the investigation is related to a member of the Guard as a member of the Guard, so that it would be internal to internal investigations to the Guard and to anybody's behavior or potential criminal activity as members of the Guard. So it's a sort of internal policing mechanism. I'll defer to General Knight on the wording of this, but to make sure that the Guard and the Guard members as Guard members are behaving appropriately. Does that make sense? Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Tranum. Thank you. So Senator, has there been discussion surrounding the possibility of a certified law enforcement officer who let's say is the sheriff of Chittenden County and becomes the Provost Marshall? We did discuss some, and I don't remember a whole lot of what the discussion was like as far as whether or not local state's attorneys or what role local state's attorneys will play in addition to the Provost Marshall on behalf of the National Guard. So I guess my question is that if you've got a sheriff in the same county in which an alleged sexual assault takes place within the National Guard, and that individual is wearing two hats at that point, I guess I'm wondering if there was any discussion or thoughts about whether or not the outside prosecution investigation and prosecution in that case, how that would work in with the National Guard and their process of judicial, you know, whatever they call it. Yeah. Thank you, Representative Tranum. The discussion and I wasn't involved in all of the committee discussions, so I'm not a member of the Senate Government Operations Committee. I was involved in the discussion specific to this amendment, although they did discuss it a couple of times when I wasn't able to join them. However, my understanding is that this position would, they would not have the ability to charge a person with a crime. They would be able to investigate within the National Guard and cooperate with outside law enforcement officers in the investigation and in providing testimony or witnesses or evidence. So if the person is a Chinning County Sheriff and a member of the Guard, I think like many of us, that person would have to be clear as to which position they are acting in. You know, are they the Provost Marshall of the National Guard or are they acting in their capacity as the Sheriff of Chinning County? And perhaps there may be instances where they might have to recuse themselves if it's a conflict. However, and Damien Leonard can speak to this a little bit more precisely than I can. He and I worked really hard on the language of this amendment to make sure that it was clear. There clearly are some cases where it will get a little dicey like it does for everyone in our small state on occasion when we're wearing multiple hats, but I think that if everyone is working with best intentions and being ethical and honest, those are things that hopefully could be worked out. Okay. You hit on my point, which was if the Sheriff's Department is assigned to investigate that particular incident, it would be difficult for the Sheriff to administer both duties at the same time. Now you did mention recusing themselves, but I'm not sure how that works. I don't know. I guess they probably could, but without you touched on what was on my mind as far as. Yeah, and I will point out there is a Provost Marshall and Assistant Provost Marshall. So it may be the case where the one of them has to recuse themselves and the other one would take over if there was an instance like that. Thanks Ruth. And I guess this will be for General Knight. I think this is fine as far as it goes in my initial understanding of it, but I also seem to remember that the Provost Marshall was not going to be a part-time position. And I guess that'll be a question for General Knight that if this were a full-time position that that person would be the Provost Marshall, they would be hired. This is the hiring of the Provost Marshall and not a part-time employee who has a second position. The Assistant Provost Marshall was going to be a non-commissioned officer. So that may affect at least some of the immediate issue with what Representative Trowell might have been talking about, but we'll get a clarification from that for both General Knight and Frutanian. So that's as pretty clear. It's just those two pieces of amendment and the Senate didn't change anything else in the bill. So the primary language creating this position, creating what we are trying to get to the National Guard is intact. So that that makes part of this easier. Representative Gonzales, still muted. No? Try again? All right, do you want to come back? All right, so Representative Gonzales will come back. Any further questions for Senator Hardy right at this minute? And Senator, can you hang out for a little while or do you need to run? I believe I can hang out. I think my committee is on hold, so I think I can hang out for at least a little bit, but I'll let you know when and if I have to leave. That's great. Thank you. General Knight, hold on. Let's see if Representative Gonzales thinks it did work. Did your mic work? We'll see you in a minute. General Knight, Representative Knight, not yet. General Knight, are you there? I am, sir. How are you? Good. How are you? Doing well. Where are you testifying from? I am sequestered safely in my office at Camp Johnson. Okay, that's air conditioned, I hope. It is. Good. So if you could just share with us the process that you worked on with the Senate on these two amendments. Again, we're putting you at a slight disadvantage because we usually would get the legal side of it first. But if you could just share with us your thoughts on the amendments as they were passed through the Senate, that would be great. Thank you, sir. And hello to the committee. I hope everybody's doing well. I certainly appreciate the efforts to get the bill to this point and appreciate Senator Hardy and Senator Purchlick for working with the legal to get us here. But everybody's on track and what the intent of this is and the clarifying language I think certainly helps out. But it is focused on addressing criminal activity within the Vermont National Guard. We're working on a position description. I figured it would be good if I had the position first. But to your point, Representative Stevens, it is initially a part-time job for a drill status, field grade officer, and senior NCO. Now there may be a point down the road where we have to revisit this. If the need is there, the only workaround that the deputy adjutant, Jim, and I can see at this point is that position becomes a state employee. My hope is that the criminal activity doesn't rise to such a degree where that's a requirement. But what this position does is it fills a niche that we currently don't have. It certainly augments existing resources that I've got in place. But those are in large part administrative processes. So I don't have as significant a deterrent effect as I could by having a provost-martial team that would function as a liaison with civil law enforcement and within the organization with the sexual assault response coordinator or state equal employment manager. And speaking with the judge advocate general at National Guard Bureau, it in essence becomes a compliance team for us. In addition, it would help us run our NCIC terminal here with two trained personnel to do that and also provide another resource to focus on force protection, security assessments at outlying armories. So in the end, the amendments certainly feed the intent of the position. What we do here, I think somebody had mentioned that we do internal investigations. But in the end, those are largely administrative. So we assigned an officer to do an investigation who may have no investigative background. And they may at that some point come across an investigation, which is more complex than expected. And that happens. But what this position does by having that logical liaison capability with civil law enforcement, if it goes beyond anything that we can deal with internally, there's a natural linkage with civil law enforcement. And then that team could provide, for instance, a supplemental affidavit to support any criminal charges that will be forthcoming from civil law enforcement. I hope that helps. It sounds as if this helped clarify the positions for you, for the guard, because I mean, you were looking for a particular, the reason you were looking for this was because you wanted to be able to hire the person as the tag. But also because of the difference, can you go back and explain that? Why we needed this legislation? Because I'm assuming that this clarifies it a little bit for you. Because they're going to be a level three officer, it had to be attached. Yeah. So since we were making them a level three certified officer, both of them, we had to have that in statute. Such as, yeah. So without that level three certification, what I have is another administrative tool, and it doesn't have the same impact on the organization as having a level three certified officer to function in a drilling status as a liaison with civil law enforcement. Okay. No, that's great clarification. Again, it's been a long three months since we visited this text. Representative Gonzalez and then Walsh. Let's see. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Fantastic. And I keep having internet challenges, so I'm trying to go in and out of video. So I apologize for keep bumping up and off. So as in general, thank you for being here today. And as you know, I am very persistent in looking at this actual assault report. And I'm wondering, and as part of what you often know from the years of chatting is that the report that we've gotten from you all in the past is very anemic. And so I am wondering about the language in this amendment and how you are feeling about your ability to give us a robust meaningful report with the language that we have in this bill? Well, we'll continue to work with you, ma'am. And we've actually just transitioned. So we have a new state equal employment manager, Duffy Jamison. And I'd like to set up a time where we could all sit down and kind of revisit what it is that the legislature and the committee certainly would like to see in that report and give you enough fidelity to make that happen. I'm very interested in being a transparent organization and giving you the level of detail required. That's great. And you think that in addition to this hire, but actually looking at the legislation that the Senate has put in this amendment, that that would assist you in having a more robust, meaningful report? I do, ma'am. I think having another tool that can, and here's one of the challenges with the Guard. And not everybody may understand how we're constructed. So we have a duty to report. So for instance, if a Guard member runs a file of law enforcement and is charged criminally, our policy says they are supposed to report to us that, hey, I got in trouble with the law. Well, that doesn't always happen. And we may not find out that there was a criminal charge on a member of the Guard because a third of our force actually doesn't live in Vermont. They are from throughout the Northeast. So it may be, at least in one occasion I know of, a matter of two years before we found out. And we had a soldier coming on orders to support for state active duty the COVID response. And part of our process is to onboard them to put them on orders. And that's inclusive of an NCIC check, the National Criminal Information System. And only then do we find out that they had a civil conviction. So this team would get at that. And I think that in turn could feed some of the data that we may not be seeing currently. Wonderful. Thank you. Representative Walls. General Knight, this question is for you. And this is actually having to do with the second part of the amendment. And that is the authority of the Provost Marshall and the System Provost Marshall. I'm just wondering, does this change have any kind of effect on how you might use them? No, sir. And this is something that I've discussed with my Deputy Adjutant General here and our Judge Advocate General. The intent and inclusive in that position description is the focus is the Vermont National Guard. If anything, it clarifies that intent in statute. So that certainly meets my intent. Okay. Thank you. Good to hear that. Well, that was one case. I think when, I mean, an officer like this, do they not traditionally have the ability to respond to a crime? I mean, if they're driving home and if they're off campus and they hear that there's something going on, do they have a right or responsibility to respond? Or if they're called in directly? Or will this language just stop that? Because I mean, a level three officer, I mean, we've taken testimony in the past that a level three officer who works for the Department of Liquor and Lottery can respond. But that's a balance between people saying, well, we want to make sure the guard stays on, you know, with the guard and isn't an additional state police force. Does that make sense? Yes, sir, it does. And this would go back to when I was the Chief Liquor Investigator for DLC. And at the time, prior to statute change, our law enforcement ability was limited to the license premise. So in this case, if they're in a duty status with the guard, and they see a criminal violation, they should be calling their civil law enforcement partners, because their own orders are on duty with us. The intent of the bill and the intent of the position is limited to Vermont National Guard criminal activity. And if I remember correctly, we had to change the statute in order to allow liquor officers to act in a broader way. That is correct, sir. And there have been occasions, you know, when I was driving home after, you know, doing inspections in downtown Burlington, and if I got behind somebody who was, you know, giving all the indications of being, you know, driving under the influence, that was a radio call to, you know, a local municipality or state police to actually initiate the stop. And then I would provide a supplemental effort, David. Okay. So that's, you know, that's a real good clarification of what's happened, what's a normal course of business under these circumstances with these kinds of these kinds of limitations attached. Representative Trano. Yeah, I just wanted to say that all certified law enforcement officers in Vermont have statewide jurisdiction. So I'm going to do what the general was just talking about, including fishing game wardens, they are often in on cultivation marijuana, cultivation bus. So this person would have statewide law enforcement jurisdiction in the event that they were a sort of a level three certified officer. Well, what I just heard was that this creates a limitation to that service, to that statewide jurisdiction. Well, that's my point. I think that I'm not sure how that works. But you know, that's okay. It doesn't matter. I just thought that when we think in terms of in terms of certified law enforcement officers, that they generally have statewide jurisdiction. But if we want to limit that, and that's that's part of what we're doing here as far as the provost position, then I'm okay with that. Right. So just to clarify, I mean, again, that that's something that existed with in the general's case, and in the case of the our portfolio, that's something that happened with the liquor officers, which changed about I want to say five or six years ago. That changed where they were allowed to do traffic stops out of the blue, not in their jurisdiction. Whereas this is limiting their jurisdiction to guard when off campus to guard related crime. Right. I understood. Did I get that right, general? And Senator, is that is that really what we're what how this limitation has been shaped? That's correct, sir. Okay. Yep, Senator Hardy. Yeah, represent Stevens and Triana. Yeah, that that is that was my intent was to limit it to the guard. And you know, I think it's perhaps goes without saying, but I'll say it that in this current situation with the national scene on police brutality and police actions. My intent also was to make sure that as we're creating two new law enforcement positions, that those law enforcement positions would have the specific duties within the guard itself and not have civilian duties. And so I think I think that the general, first of all, for understanding that and underscoring that with the way he's creating these positions, but this is the intent was to limit their jurisdiction to the guard only. And if they happen to be law enforcement agents outside of the guard, then that would be in their duties as law enforcement agents outside of the guard. So, yes. Representative Gonzalez. So not a question, but just following up on both of those statements that we as reminding folks as it has been a little while, we did talk about that concern that I had when we when this was in our committee earlier. And so I really think the Senate for being able to figure out some language to narrow that and not just general policing, but one of the topics of conversation that we had is potentially around immigration issues and things like that. So, so really having it meet the needs of holding guard members accountable and creating a healthy workplace by knowing what guard members are doing on and off the base and having that authority, but not an overreach of that authority. And so I'm really grateful that the Senate was able to figure out that language. Any further questions for other Senator Hardy or General Knight? Damien is still in the Commerce Committee. We can take a break if there's no further questions for the folks, witnesses who are here, or we can. I mean, I mean, I'm uncomfortable with voting without hearing from Damien just to do a walkthrough. So we'll wait for him. Representative Kalaki. Oh, you put your hand down. Okay. So let's take a break. We can have a committee conversation if we want. Ron, you have something to. Well, I was just going to remind people the procedure for a break is I put up a sign on the screen saying that we've taken a break and that you mute your microphones and cameras. So I'm not sure how you unless you just want to have a committee discussion. Fine, also. So we'll do that if we choose to do that. But before we let either Senator Hardy or General Knight go, first of all, Senator, thank you very much for work on this. It's good to see this come back. Yeah, thank you all for your work on it and for having me here to explain it. And if there are no other questions, I will leave to go to my other committee meeting. But where there's only five of you, right? I appreciate your time and your consideration. And, you know, Mr. Chair, please reach out if you have further questions for me. We will. Thank you, everybody. Take care. And General Knight, while we still have you, if we could just change gears a little bit and if you could spend a little bit of time telling us about the guards, the COVID-19 response. I mean, we know through the news that there have been that the guard built a potential emergency center up at Champlain Expo. We know that the guard has distributed MREs in several communities. And I would just love to get your feedback, not just on what the guard did, but what you may have experienced just as a witness to seeing hundreds and hundreds of remonters in line waiting for food and how that may have affected the way that we should be looking at this crisis right now. It's more of a philosophical question. I'm sorry, I'm just going to throw it out while we have a little bit of time. But I just want to make sure we know what was done by the guard and what impact do you think that made? Well, sorry, I appreciate the opportunity. And I can tell you that one thing that we've learned from this is that our process and our systems work. We've been refining them. But to me, that the spirit of collaboration between the governor of staff, between agency of health and human services, commerce and community development, the Vermont Food Bank, UVM, all the CEOs of the hospitals, it's been pretty remarkable to kind of watch as things progressed here. But as for an example, I am just continually impressed with the quality of airmen and soldiers we have in this organization. And they've actually, Vermont, the Vermont National Guard, on many occasions has become an example for the rest of the United States. And a prime example, as you mentioned, was that the Essex alternate care facility. And this goes back when we really first kicked us off. It was probably about two months ago now. We were having daily call-ins with the chief of National Guard Bureau, the 54 states and territories and the staff at NGB Inclusive. And that was the Corps of Engineers. National Guard has a liaison brigadier general with them. And when the governor asked, it was about seven days from the ask to actually standing up that facility and being open for business. And inclusive in that was hot and cold running water, power at every bed. So folks could charge us cell phones if we needed it. And we had all of our medical providers over there ready to go. And our civil engineers, it's important to understand this was neither Army nor Air. This is a joint venture. And it was our Air Guard civil engineers that came up with the plans to build it. It was actually our Army band who was central in getting the framing done in conjunction with those civil engineers and building junction boxes. And then the folks that worked in the background were state employees that by any means necessary streamlined the contracting process, which would take days or weeks, literally down to a matter of hours. So our soldiers and airmen never went without supplies to get that thing built. So having it up and running in seven days in the initial buildout cost, inclusive of personnel cost, was about $235,000. And when I briefed that to the 54 and to the chief of National Guard Bureau, I immediately started getting emails from my counterparts in other states asking for the plans. How did you do it for that? Because the Corps of Engineers was building a 500 bed facility without the stuff that we had to the tune of $3.4 million. So that to me is the ingenuity that this organization brings in support to their communities. Over the past couple of months, we've I think were over 2 million meals distributed at multiple sites throughout Vermont. And that's in conjunction with the Vermont Food Bank. So I've been to half a dozen of those myself. Senator Welch came out to see what our soldiers and our airmen were doing. So there's been some legislative engagement on the national stage as well. Our air guard are running the Strategic National Stock by Warehouse and Colchester. They've gotten that pretty much down to a science, making sure that needed equipment and supplies gets where it needs to go in a very timely manner. Our medical providers from our medical company with the Brigade Support Battalion and our 15th Civil Support Team, I think as of today have crossed over 5,000 tests at different sites. They're focused a couple of different places now. But in every instance, when I talk to those soldiers and airmen, they are happy to be doing what they're doing. And they do it without complaint. And it's a reminder, I think, to all of us, this is our first mission. That's the beauty of the guard. Because in my view, active duty can't do what we do. So I'm just immensely proud of the collaboration within state government and with the guard. And I'm certainly proud of our soldiers and airmen for doing what they're doing. To your question on the food distribution sites, there were some concerns from legislators, well, from constituents to the legislators that some folks were going to these food distribution sites and taking advantage and stockpiling or hoarding. That's not what I saw. And Mr. Gregg and I responded to some of those concerns. What I saw were Vermonters in need. A lot of veterans, a lot of folks that have retired, a lot of older Vermonters. And in many instances, the folks that were there weren't picking up for themselves. They were picking up for their parents. They were picking up for the neighbors who couldn't get out of the house and do for themselves. Or they were working and still had a need. So I didn't get a sense that there were a significant number of folks taking advantage. What I saw were people in need. And I think we'll see that need. My hope is it tapers off as we start to open the economy back up because a lot of folks were independent business people. And they just, they weren't open. I talked to construction engineers. They're not working because their work site's not open. I talked to a young Mason who is not working and he and his partner in their small business between the two families were 11 kids. Yeah. So the need is there. But I think as the economy opens back up and we put Vermonters back to work, that need will taper off. You have been preparing for a federal deployment. Have those plans changed given the COVID crisis? I mean, and I'll ask you what I've asked of ACCD and of AHS and everybody else who's been responding to the COVID crisis. Is there, first, from the state perspective, do you have a cubicle set aside for emergency planning for the net? I mean, if there's a blowback, if there's a second or third wave of pandemic to take what you've learned and move forward. And is any of that planning postponing or changing the federal call up at all? It is not, sir. That's been a point of discussion. But part of our planning process is to make sure that we retain the capability to respond to both missions. So even though a significant portion of the 86 Brigade Combat Team is looking at a deployment as well as our law enforcement attachment and our public affairs attachment, which are too much smaller units. It doesn't impact us to such a degree that we don't retain the capability to respond. The focus is less, for instance, on the brigades of Fort Battalion, which has been really in the lead in our response to the COVID-19 crisis. And that unit, that battalion, will actually become our rear attachment headquarters. And their function is to make sure that families are taken care of. And they're there, again, to take care of our first mission, which is taking care of our state. So we'll be able to do both missions. The federal mission will go to three different combatant commands, European command, Africa command, and Central command. And right now, all I have is a notification of sourcing because National Guard Bureau is way behind on issuing an alert order. So we're planning as if it's going to happen. We've been sourced as if it's going to happen. But until I get an alert, what that does, it actually makes it much more real for us. But in the interim, where we're continuing to drive on with planning, knowing very likely we're going to get the call. Okay. And did I hear you say that in terms of the Essex Project that the National Guard, the Army Guard Band was instrumental, like the, I don't want to say marching band, but the band that comes and plays at the State House, how did that, I mean, is that because they're made up of engineers and trombonists? Or is it because they're, what I just, that was such a, that's, I'm sorry, that stood out for me. Well, we like to consider the band as kind of our Swiss Army knife. And that's one of the other benefits of the Guard is everybody brings a different background to their drill. So in one instance, you know, I think she was a bassoon player, one of our young NCOs during her college years over the summer would intern on a construction site. So she was in there framing and building panels in conjunction with the civil engineers. And once they had instructions on how to build a junction box, there were, you know, literally dozens of junction boxes. So the electricians, when they came in to install them, didn't have to build them themselves. So it's just a diversity of background for us that the Guard brings that really augmented how things went there. It was efficient. And again, it was done in seven days, which to me was just unprecedented. And no, it's a great argument for steam over STEM says to have a, make sure the arts are involved with, with all of the other STEM issues as well. Representative Hango. Thank you. General Knight, I love your story about the Army band. I play in a town band with many of the former members of the 40th Army band, and they are a multi-talented group. So I just wanted to thank you very much, you and your airmen and soldiers for the, the work that you did during this crisis and, and just the speed at which things were accomplished and how orderly everything went. I want to thank you for your leadership. Absolutely. It's an honor for me to be here to do it. All right. And Damien has joined us. Generally, you're free to loiter if you would like. If you need to go, you can certainly head off, but we, we were able to continue the conversation because our attorney has arrived. If you don't mind, sir, I'll stick around. This is an important bill for me. No, you're, you are more than welcome to be here. So I just wanted to give you the freedom in case you needed to, to, to head out. So Damien, are you available? I am. Hello, stranger. How you been? Nice to see everybody. I didn't get a chance to see you pre haircut. Since I've seen you guys. A haircut, I see. Yeah. Yes. I would have liked to have seen the pre haircut look, but. Yeah. It's my second or third haircut of the, of COVID. But, but, but it's easy when you cut your own hair. I was going to say your kids do it for you, right? They're good, but not yet. Yeah. Well, welcome. Good to see you. Thank you. It's, you know, we'll cut right to the chase just to make sure it sounds like you've been busy already today. And I'm sure I'm assuming you'll have a busy week like us, but so to have you for this particular amendment is important. We have an opportunity to while we have you just to hear. We know we heard from Senator Hardy. We've heard from General Knight, but if you could just walk us through the amendments, that would be great if you could. Sure. Would you like me to throw it up on everyone's screen? Yes, please. And it is available on our page for people who want to read it on their, on their computer. Yeah. So just to warn you, I have been having some trouble with sharing documents. So if that reoccurs, I may have to have Ron share it with you and scroll through it. I'll do my best, but there's some, some sort of weird glitch on my iPad when I try to share these documents. There's been glitches about Zoom for the last, well, three months, but yeah, just a second here. All right. So I'm sharing the Senate proposal of amendment. So the Senate essentially passed the House bill. But under the duties of the Provost Marshall, they added this item number four, which is to respond to allegations of sexual assault within the Vermont National Guard, including reporting and documenting allegations of sexual assault within the Guard, coordinating and communicating. And that is the issue I've been having. But you can't scroll? Well, no, it'll scroll and then skip right back up to the top of the page after a few seconds. So that's a, that's a spring issue. That's the spring inside your iPad is. Oh, you know, what I need are a few Guard members with mechanical skills to fix that spring or to help me out with it. So not to belittle their skills, but yes, I'd love someone with the IT skills that I've seen with some of the Guard members we have in our IT department here to help me fix this. So the other piece is coordinating and communicating with the National Guard sexual assault response coordinator, coordinating and communicating with federal, state and local law enforcement in relation allegations of sexual assault by a member of the Guard and coordinating with state's attorneys and the Attorney General in cases related to an alleged sexual assault by a member of the Vermont National Guard. So we worked in the Senate, I think you've heard from Senator Hardy and the Edge in general at this point, General Knight. And we worked in the Senate with also legal counsel from the Guard to get this language right and make sure that we weren't inadvertently cutting out or hindering part of the sexual assault response process. And Ron, I think I'm going to ask you to share this because my document's just kind of going haywire on my screen at this point. But so that language was kind of the result of that work. And I think as Senator Hardy probably already told you her intent was to make sure that sexual assault was specifically called out in the bill and emphasized because that's an important issue that the legislature spent a fair amount of time on over the last several years in working with the Guard and that the Guard has also spent a great deal of time working on. So I see a question here from Representative Walts. Okay, yes. Thank you. I'm glad you're calling that back up. I find it kind of curious it's C and D. It doesn't seem to address what if the victim is a member of the Guard and the perpetrator is not. So I think and General Knight can speak to this better than I can. But my understanding is that the Guard has a variety of resources that come to bear in this situation. The Provost Marshall is a law enforcement resource that can help with taking witness statements and coordinating with law enforcement officers in the actual response to the sexual assault. And then the sexual assault response coordinator and then other resources within the Guard actually can provide resources to the victims. So and I would invite General Knight to kind of contribute at this point because I think he can speak to this much better than I can about how the responsibilities are divvied up within the Guard. Are you there, General? Okay. Thanks, Damien. I can do that. So in the Representative Walts, in the instance where we have a victim or a survivor who is a Guard member, we defer to that victim to work with a victim advocate and our sexual assault response coordinator and we provide them the resources. It is entirely up to them how they want to handle it. Their two mechanisms, restricted report, means that they take no action and that, again, is the victim's decision. Or if it's unrestricted report and the chain of command is notified, that allows us to have that liaison with civil law enforcement and pursue prosecution for the perpetrator. Okay. I just find it kind of curious that it's addressed only a Guard member who is a perpetrator, not one who is a victim. Thank you. Yeah. I think, again, Representative Walts, I would just note that the Provost Marshall here is in the law enforcement role, sort of addressing the inappropriate behavior. And then there are other resources in the Guard that assist the victims with their needs and how they come forward regarding the claim and report it and providing them with assistance. So I think that's what you're seeing reflected here. And my understanding of Senator Hardy's intent here was certainly not to minimize the needs of the victim or the importance of providing assistance to the victim. Okay. Thank you. I'm a little bit uncomfortable whether it seems to put the perpetrator and the victim in different places. So thank you for the explanation. Okay. Are there other questions on that change? Representative Gonzalez? I'm wondering, Damien, if you can speak from the legal perspective on that in terms of answering Representative Walts' question and concern, because you have such a deep background in that aspect of the law in general. And in your legal opinion, the concern that Representative Walts has is addressed in this language or not. So I think that from a legal standpoint, I think the thing to keep in mind here is that you've got a number of different pieces and levers that may be moving following a sexual assault. And there are a number of different offices that may come to bear on it, depending on the particular nature. So if you have a criminal sexual assault, you have a law enforcement issue there because a law has been broken. And that's where the Provost Marshall particularly comes to bear is that they're taking witness statements and they're coordinating with law enforcement in sort of bringing the perpetrator to justice, if you will. There's also a sexual assault response coordinator and the victim's advocate who can work with the victims on that issue. And then to the extent to that the sexual assault was involved with, for example, sexual harassment, there may be an equal employment opportunity issue, which the HR team at the Guard, which I understand is in the process of being significantly strengthened, would come to bear at that point. So the circumstances that we're dealing with, I think you've got a lot of different laws that are kind of coming into play. And there are different players that address each one of those aspects of the issue, whether it's providing advocacy and support for the victim, or whether it's addressing an issue of sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace that may accompany the sexual assault, or whether it is addressing the actual sexual assault, which requires coordination with law enforcement authorities to ensure that the individual is prosecuted and that the occurrence is fully investigated. Did that answer your question? I'm wondering if Representative Walsh, if that addresses your concern or if you're thinking in that? Not totally. I'm still pretty uncomfortable with it. It seems as if the Provost Marshall kicks into action if the perpetrator is a Guard member, but not if the victim is. And they should be equally involved in investigation if the victim is a Guard member. I think the Provost Marshall is involved with issues that involve Guard members and issues that occur on base. But one thing to understand too is the Provost Marshall is going to essentially be coordinating with civilian law enforcement where there may be greater law enforcement expertise. And ultimately, any case is going to be brought by civilian law enforcement here. So, and again, General Knight can speak a little bit better to the existing process and where the Provost Marshall fits in within that. And I understand your concern is that what if you have an individual in the Guard who is the victim of sexual assault by someone from outside the Guard? Am I understanding that correctly? Yes, it's very clear. Perpetrator is a Guard member or if the assault occurs on Guard property, that's pretty clear. Ron, you're still sharing your screen and we can see your email. So, yes, you're exactly right, Damian. My concern is the victim is a Guard member. The perpetrator is not and it's not on the assault did not occur on Guard property. So, if the assault occurred off of Guard property, that's a civilian law enforcement issue. So, for example, if you have a Guard member but they're assaulted when they're back home, they're not on drill, that's an issue that the civilian law enforcement would be responsible for handling whatever the appropriate law enforcement agency is for that community. I understand that, Damian, but it sounds like the Provost Marshall would not be connected in any way with that sort of case. I think they ought to be involved in the investigation. But okay, I don't want to belabor that. Okay. Ron, can you scroll down so we can see A, B, C, and D? No, the other way. Scroll up, I guess, right there. So, it seems like Section A would cover up what my concern is. Right, and I wanted to go back and see that. But I also see in letter C that law enforcement in relation to allegations of sexual assault by a member would be a victim or a witness relating those allegations. Right. There's also issues here. So, if I'm a Guard member and it's alleged that I committed a sexual assault, well, I'm not on Guard, not in my role as a Guard member, but I'm back in the community. The Guard is also concerned about that because that can affect, if I've committed a felony when I'm off duty, the Guard is definitely concerned about that. So, that's another thing that the Provost Marshall gets involved in here is coordinating with local law enforcement. And also, if we remember the original bill, one of the things that the Provost Marshall would be heading up is the Guard sort of keeping track of the crime information databases there, too, to ensure that you don't have instances where someone's committed a felony and the Guard doesn't know about that when it's occurred. And General Knight, again, can speak a little bit more to the importance of that role and how that works. But it's kind of important to remember that this is just one small subsection. And on the broader section, that Guard member, the Provost Marshall and the Assistant Provost Marshall are not only documenting and reporting allegations of crimes that occur within the Guard, but they're also coordinating with civilian law enforcement in terms of finding out about allegations and their keeping track of when you need to do security check and so forth. You know, they're the ones who are going to be checking the crime information databases to see, you know, was Guard member X arrested or did they commit a crime or something like that that we don't know about? And so that's something they're monitoring. And I may not be explaining that very well. General Knight, again, can probably explain this a little bit better from the Guard's perspective. So I defer to him again and let him chime in here if he would like. No, I get what you're saying. And you know, when I'm reading C, allegations of sexual assault by a member of the Vermont National Guard, I'm reading that as strictly perpetrator. But if there's a way to read that is the allegation is blocked by evit them, okay, if it could be read that way. So I would say what you're looking for, essentially, is the language to say coordinating and communicating with law enforcement in relation to allegations of sexual assault that was either perpetrated by or against a member of the National Guard. I would say involving a member of the Vermont National Guard. That way perpetrator in the victim. That is a shorter way of wording it. And I would, you know, just and just just for our purposes, you know, the question will be again, when we get to the question of do we concur or concur with further amendment? Um, that's that I think is let's measure out whether that change is whether that change needs to get done. I just I'm just throwing it out there in terms of in terms of concurring or occurring with further amendment, we can and we can have that conversation after Damien has done scrolling through. Yeah, I would recommend the same thing in D. The CND do to say involving. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I think there's another question from Representative Hango. Yes. Thank you. It's actually maybe a clarification. I'm not sure for Representative Walts. I hear your concern for the victim. And I read this in a different way. Subsection for letter a response to allegations of sexual assault within the Vermont National Guard. And that reporting and documentation within the guard led me to just assume victims and perpetrators. So I was not reading it the way that you were. So I'd be interested to know if other committee members were reading it as you were or as I am. Thank you. I'm reading a the same way you are Representative Hango that it seems to me that C and D we find a in a way that I'm not comfortable with a seems to cover everything C and D do not. Yeah, I guess I think the A, B and C and D together cover pretty much everybody. But my opinion, thank you. All right. So it's Ron is we can go down to the second section of amendment here. Yeah. And maybe Ron, if you can go back just a little bit there, right there. I muted myself. So the what this basically provides here is that the Provost Marshall on assistant Provost Marshall have the same powers and immunities as all other level three law enforcement officers in the state. The reference back to the state police is just standard language that we use for those. So these are not special powers. It's the same as your local police. It's the same as sheriffs who are certified law enforcement officers. And it's the same as state troopers. It's the same as fish and wildlife game wardens. So if we can scroll down to the next page. Ron, the the the next piece here is is key. And this was an adjustment in the House version. It provided that the powers granted to the Provost Marshall and the assistant Provost Marshall may be exercised statewide. Again, that's standard level three law enforcement officer language. The chain with the amendment from Senator Hardy and Senator Perchlich was to say with respect to criminal activity in the National Guard only. And the concern there, which she may have discussed with you is just the idea of creating sort of statewide law enforcement officers instead of just keeping the focus on the National Guard. And then the last sentence there is just to ensure that this paragraph couldn't be construed as preventing an individual serving as the Provost Marshall or assistant Provost Marshall working as an officer in another law enforcement agency and exercising the authority, the law enforcement authority granted to officers in that agency. So in other words, a lot of the Guard members are their their regular full time civilian jobs are as law enforcement officers at our local police department or state troopers or law enforcement officers within a state agency, something like that. And then they serve their part time Guard duty. And this would allow them to serve as the Provost Marshall or assistant Provost Marshall. And then while they're in while they're wearing their Provost Marshall or assistant Provost Marshall hat there, they can exercise that authority with respect to criminal activity in the National Guard. And when they're outside of their Guard duty, they exercise their law enforcement authority statewide, wearing their civilian law enforcement hat. Does that make sense? Okay, I see heads, heads nodding. So that that's what this is here. So this this was the other change in the Senate was basically to limit their law enforcement authority while they're serving on on serving in their their role as Guard members to criminal activity in the National Guard. And then otherwise, they can in their civilian jobs work as a regular law enforcement officer exercising statewide authority. I represent Toronto. Just to further Tommy's issues a little bit further. When a criminal investigation is launched, it is launched in a way in which it tries to determine the perpetrator of an offense. So a Guard member who is not accused of anything is not generally involved in that investigation other than giving a statement as to what may have happened. So maybe we should be thinking in terms of some other type of support so that the National Guard maybe can consider coordinating with victims advocates, let's say, to provide services to a member of the Guard who may be a victim of a sexual assault. Just my thoughts. Right, and I think just kind of two thoughts on that one is that there are resources within the Guard already related to that for events that occur within the Guard. The other piece is you know, it may make sense to to work on something related to strengthening the ties between the Guard and civilian resources. The question at this point would be whether this is the bill to do that in or whether that's something to address when there's a little more time to tackle that issue. And I don't know enough about those resources. It's outside of my area of expertise to really talk to you about what exists outside of the Guard and how you would most effectively be able to tie those together. So that's something that probably would have a strong connection to the Judiciary Committee too, who works on some of the victim's advocate issues. Both the State Criminal Charges brought that and allows, are we all out? Oh, I'm on, okay. That allows the victim to obtain services from the Statewide Victims Fund and Victims Advocacy Network. Also the Special Investigations Unit on Sexual Assaults outside of the National Guard would probably be a part of this as well. Although that's, I think that's only for juvenile assault. So that probably, right? Well, I mean, one of the things that General Knight emphasized when we were taking testimony on this in the Senate is that typically for something like a sexual assault, there are law enforcement officers who specialize in investigating those instances. And so the Guard typically works with an outside law enforcement agency anyway because that expertise lies outside the Guard. So if there is a sexual assault committed within the Guard, they're going to be relying on civilian law enforcement expertise that can help them investigate that. That is for you, the special investigations unit that does that. Yeah, and again, so that those resources typically lie outside and the Provost Marshall's role is to coordinate with those outside law enforcement resources and to kind of assist and to solicit the process. Okay, John, Representative Falaki. Thank you. You know, I like these two amendments. They are clear to me and I sort of with Representative Hango that Tommy's issues, I hear your issues, but I think it's incorporated in the language as I read it. And I very much appreciate the separation of that the National Guard is criminal activity at the Guard only because we had discussed that we had a separate bill for that as well on the wall. And so this is nice that we've incorporated that. I worry that if we make changes at this point that it just in this last week that it's not really going to be possible to get it back and forth, which so I actually would move that we I would say let's move these two this amendment as it is. I'm okay with that. I guess I make a motion. I'm sorry, I don't know how to say that, but I'm good with it. Well, that's I mean, it's I mean, well that there's a motion on the floor right now to to accept the amendment as it's written, which would be to concur that I'm sorry the motion would be to concur with the Senate amendment as amended by the Senate would be concurring with the with each 750 as amended by the Senate. If there's a second for that, we can continue the conversation or we can wait to see a second, but I do have to clarify that Tommy's going to second that representative Gommash. That was my intent to second it. Oh, you should just cut in yell. Well, um, so so basically try me to do something and I and I continually do it. So well, thank you. In this case, so that so the motion on the floor right now is to concur with the Senate amendment. And basically, if so, so for I'm just trying to look at this from a timing perspective, it's 133. Now, if we compare with this, and it goes on the floor, then the goes to this will go to the governor to sign. If we want to consider representative walls as additions to the to the amendment, we can concur with further amendment, but that would delay this bill being passed until August, realistically. And so I mean, I'll just throw out we've heard. I mean, we've heard a good argument about making it more precise. We've heard people interpreting it that the that the intent is there. I would I mean, I will put it to you, Tommy. How do you feel about moving forward with the bill as it is? And, you know, by the time by the time the general by the time the guard gets a job description, it gets us up and going. And we've talked about we've talked. He just talked about having a new sexual sexual assault officer, somebody that we should talk to and get to know in time. Again, is that something that is that something that we need to be hyper precise on today? And what are you comfortable with? Well, I seconded it for a reason because I do want to move it along. I would like to get this business done and not have to wait until August. I do have some concern. Excuse me, Damien, some sharp lawyer is going to look at that language and say, doesn't apply to victims. Sorry. So but I do want to move along. That's why I second second, Johnson motion. Okay. Okay. Further thoughts on this? I mean, general night, if you're still there, I'd like to just sort of give you an opportunity to respond to anything you've heard over the last half hour or so. Thank you, sir. Again, thanks for everybody's discussion on the bill. As noted, I think it's important for me. It's important for the guard. Coming back to the intent, it will be incumbent upon us to ensure that we take care of our survivors no matter who the perpetrator is. I may have purview over somebody who's in the guard, but Damien is correct. If there is a perpetrator and the survivor is a guard member, we defer to the survivor on which action to take. If the survivor decides to file an unrestricted report, that will give us the opportunity to immediately start liaison with, for instance, as mentioned, one of the units for special investigation. We have a robust victim advocacy. Every unit has victim advocates. We have a robust sexual assault response coordinator and the team that's associated with that. So it's great to have a response. I want to get out of the response business. I want to get into the prevention business. And that's why I think this bill is important. So when we get that position description done, we will obviously align much of what they do with what's included in the bill. I want to eliminate it in this organization. And the intent of the bill, I think, gets us closer to that. All right. Thank you. Any further comments from committee? Representative Dimash? I move that we move this bill along, that we vote on it. The amendment. Let's do it. We've got that motion on the floor and we've got it seconded and we've got it thirded now. And that's... Oh, I'm sorry. It's okay. It's okay. I think that he has gotten to me today. If we're not punchy on June 20, whatever this is, then... You meant to call the question, Mariana? There you go. Thank you. There you go. I call the question on voting on the amendment. All right. On the bill to get it. It's on the amendment. So... I'm not doing one today. Okay. So the action on the floor is do we concur with the Senate's proposal of amendment to age 750? And it's been seconded. Clerk may commence to call the roll. Representative Fwaltz? Yes. Representative Gonzalez? Representative Long is not there. Representative Gamash? Yes. Representative Troiano? Yes. Representative Howard votes yes. Representative Kalaki? Yes. Representative Zot? Representative Byron? Yes. Representative Kando? Representative... I'm sorry. Representative Zot did vote yes on the chat. Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes. Oh, I can hear you now. Yeah. Can you recall it or do you need to? No. Please go ahead. All right. Representative Hango? Yes. Representative Stevens? Yes. 10-0-1. Okay. And the reporter of the bill on back in March was Representative Walsh. Tommy, are you prepared to do this on the floor in about half an hour? Sure. Or whenever it comes up in the next sometime today? All right. Thank you. All right. I think we're going to leave it there for today. I think we're scheduled to meet tomorrow. If there's... I mean, I don't know what the floor action is going to be. I mean, given that I think the speaker was very good on time today, but depending on what bills are coming up, I think we saw the potential schedule. I would still be prepared. Representative Howard, I would be prepared on H880 at any time this week to do that. Quite frankly, and I guess the only other bills that are hanging out there from us are H783, which I'm not sure we'll get to this week. The homeless bill of rights, I know we're not going to get to this week. So we'll see what we have tomorrow. Again, I originally scheduled to just sort of have a conversation about the, you know, just sort of a review to remind us before we left for a break. But I also hear exactly what Representative Hango was saying in terms of being pretty fried. So maybe we will take maybe an email with the homework over the next two months to just say, make sure you're ready to work on these when we come back in August. It will be sufficient. So Deanna? And just in that, just from really the learning perspective, if we are able to meet at all, and Mr. Chair, if you're able to perhaps make that email before we meet and then just a quick gathering together, from a learning perspective, it would keep things more accessible. And so wanting to know all the different factors and how exhausting this is, if that's possible, I would advocate for that. Yeah. So without going into detail, I'll just say S83 was the do not dark in my door language that was the same language that was in the sexual harassment bill we passed two years ago. It was just being applied slightly differently. S59 is the sports betting study that is coming out of the Senate. We had a version of that up on our wall that was sponsored by Representative Jickling last year. S226 is the union bill that we, I think we talked about it where we, the teachers, it was about the teachers and the school boards aligning some issues regarding health insurance negotiations. What was the number again? S226. Thank you. Then there were two bills, two other Senate bills, S257, which I haven't looked at closely, which I think aligns a little bit with our H739. It was rental safety. And then S237 was a housing bill, but it also had, it was primarily an Act 250 bill that hasn't come over from the Senate yet anyway. So we're not going to touch that. But those were the bills along with 738, I'm sorry, 783. And then that's what's on my list and that of course is subject to change. But those were the main bills that were coming over from the Senate. S83 we've had for a while and it passed the Senate Committee unanimously and it passed the Senate itself unanimously. So we've taken some testimony on it. I'll leave it at that without any further details. Yep, Lisa. Can you repeat the one that has pieces from Act 250? S237. Thanks. And that hasn't come over to us yet. But those are the bills that we'll look at and that are technically still alive. It's that time of year where we, nothing's over till the gavel falls and that would be until September. They're alive for not this week, but in September. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, once upon a time we thought that August was going to be only about the budget, but I think it's clear that, I mean, look, we just got, we got this bill. We dealt with it quickly because it was ours. But anyway, so we'll, yes, we'll make sure we can get a periodic email just to remind us of what we can look up and where we can look it up at. And then, you know, then it'll be up to us individually to remember that, oh, we did hear from some witness, like on S83 we didn't quite hear from all the witnesses that we might have heard, but we'll see if there's time. And we haven't heard anything about the sports betting. We haven't heard anything about, I mean, the Housing and Act 250 bill is the fact that it has Act 250 and it means that it's mostly not our bill, but we don't know anything about it. So we'll do what we can with it. And this is, this is a crazy time. So I will, if we don't have a reason to meet tomorrow, we'll cancel. And, but we won't know that until either later tonight or early tomorrow morning. And so Damien, I guess good to see you. Nice to see you too. Make sure your co-workers know we love them too. Well, yeah, it's, I've got Lego set up next to me here on the table that have been worked on this week. Oh, did you get the special Golden Dome Edition? Oh, no, she's doing the Arctic Explorers. Maybe it's comment on today's heat. Yeah. And are you barefoot and will you step on the pieces as you get up from your iPad? Oh, undoubtedly, I'm going to step on something, but it'll probably be a little Moana figurines. So, excellent. And General Knight, and it was good to hear from you and please send our regards to Ken, who I know is there with you in your company. And we'll be, I'm sure we'll be in touch with you. If not before we come back in August and certainly by then for another update. Outstanding. I appreciate everyone's efforts on this and then stay safe. Thank you, General. Thank you for, thank you for staying with us. Hi, General. Tom, Tom, I just want to make sure I understand for any of the any of the Corona Relief Funds that our committee had input on, if and when the Senate changes those things and they come back to the House, is our committee involved in looking at those amendments or as appropriations? I believe that we are going to have, we're going to have to have a say in that chunk of time. That's section 11 and 11A. Well, mostly section 11. So, I would assume that we'll be back together for that. Okay, thank you. All right. I don't know who's filming that is. Oh, it's all right. Thank you, everybody. We'll see you on the floor in just a few minutes.