 All right, let's turn our attention to prop two. We have, we've had some committee work on this we have our public hearing scheduled for this evening. I think we have the logistics worked out for how to do a hybrid public hearing so some of us will be here present in the room. And we'll be on room view, which is similar to what folks who are following along from the outside are seeing right now. Others of us will be planning to take the public hearing remotely and. And so, we will, I think, take the time to introduce ourselves as committee members at the beginning of the hearing since some of us who are sitting here physically in the room will only appear as tiny little dots and I, you know, I want to make sure that folks know, you know that they have the attention of the House of Ops committee and who we are. So we'll take a few moments just at the beginning to do that. I will give my regular spiel about about how to participate in a remote public hearing in the same way that I have done for previous public hearings and then we will hear from all of the witnesses and if anyone shows up in person we will, we will of course hear from them here in person but I believe everyone who has registered has registered to be remote. Any questions on the logistics for this evening. Excellent. All right. I just have just a few moments of committee discussion on the substance of the proposition I I want to make sure that if there are any other perspectives that that committee members want to hear from in addition to our required public hearing this evening that we get those people in to testify. So my intention to do that tomorrow at one o'clock right after the floor and our training tomorrow so that we can vote this out to the floor. Tomorrow afternoon before we adjourn for the week so other perspectives other individuals that folks would like to hear from. I would like to take a few moments to inform our consideration of Prop 2 representative LaFleur. And I'm just sort of to jump all here. Have we had any other constitutional, I guess, experts. We've had what a professor teach out a few times right. Has there been anybody else that's weighed in on it from that perspective do we know. Is there anybody else. I'm trying to think of who we heard from 2 years ago when this proposition came through 2 years ago and I off the top of my head I don't think of anyone who falls into the category of a constitutional expert. Let's give that a moment to to do a little bit of research because I see representative again and it's already. Anthony. Is it possible madam chair that Paul Gillis testified as he has done a considerable work on the evolution of the history of Vermont since colonial times if it were. Certainly possible to ask him to testify if that's the will of the committee. And if he's willing and able. This isn't a huge issue for me but I just have to say I found it interesting that the professor had acknowledged that he's vacillated back and forth on us and and I'm just curious to know. And again if we can't I totally understand that. I have a committee discussion on that actually because I found that really interesting because I recall 2 years ago, he testified for a similar amount of time. You know with the history of, you know, a great deal of history about about what the early days of Vermont looked like in terms of slavery and indentured servitude. And I think that it was a good thing to the conclusion that it was a good thing for Vermont to clarify. And this time it, he, he seemed to be of the mindset that that preserving this for historical reasons in order to hold on to this idea that Vermont or only state to prohibit slavery in its constitution seemed to weigh out in his mind and I mean happy to have a committee discussion about that. Maybe it did say regards was personal beliefs worse and I don't know. I didn't hear his testimony two years ago, but maybe his testimony two years ago came more from a personal than a story. Help me remember committee members who were here two years ago. I thought it was him and not legislative council who went through a fair amount of history and showed showed actual historical documents of advertisements that you might see in the newspaper around bringing people into indentured servitude mainly European, you know, people who really wanted to migrate would look for indentured servitude as a path to do that. And it seemed two years ago, if I'm remembering correctly that that that he essentially said that there was some of this that was happening under, you know, sort of under the radar. In Vermont, despite the fact that we had a constitutional provision against slavery representative Hooper. I'm appreciative of representative Anthony's request. Gil is a good resource. I am. I've developed since this convention of states thing hit the skin so fervently that any fooling around with the Constitution is not the first place you should go but whether this is of substance or just window dressing I think it's something that we should address because we should be very clear that slavery is not. And that's sort of my position. Thank you. Any discussion representative McCarthy. I was a little taken aback by Professor teachouts implication and I, I don't want to read too much into what he was saying but what I took away from it was some desire to not cast the founding, the founders of Vermont as people who supported slavery. And to me, it's like the defensiveness of the history doesn't make sense. And if you, what this comes down to for me is if our Constitution's a living document, and it's a reflection of our most fundamental values as a state, then we have to have the text reflects those values and evolved over time. And clearly indentured servitude was okay with the people who founded Vermont and that's very clear and it's very much not part of our values today. I am a strong supporter of making this change and having Vermonters have the opportunity to vote on it and fall but I just that the thing that was really jumped out at me was this this kind of attitude defensiveness like we needed to protect the legacy of the people who founded the state. And I think by changing our Constitution that we're always going to have the historical documents, we're always going to have access to the evolution of the Constitution over time, but the document that we have and that's the foundation of who we are as a state. You know, I think it's got to reflect all of our real values and this, this is part of that evolution. I was really taken aback by that defensiveness, you know, I don't see history that way. So I recall a senator having that position, two years ago, and that you may have been the only member of the entire General Assembly to vote against the Constitutional amendment. And yeah, I agree that taking it back is a good description of how I thought about that. Other committee discussion. Yes, Representative Costa. For me, the most important piece of his testimony was that the proposed language will remove the ambiguity that's clearly in the Constitution at this point. So it makes it very clear in terms of the new language. And he actually supported that he said that that that that would be fine if that's what you want to do. So I think it's the clarity of the language that has really come to question. And I think that's why we need to support the proposition. Here is the list of everyone who testified two years ago in the House committee and then Senate committee. Paul Gillies is not on that list but I've asked Andrea to reach out to him to see if he might be available to share his thoughts on the history of our Constitution. Representative Anthony. Thank you madam chair I'd like to go a little further than my colleague from Winooski. I think Peter teach out was pretty clear also to say that as long as the original language is present. It at least invites or I'll put it in my terms, gives a platform to people who frankly don't deserve a platform, and who actually harbor some regret that indentured servitude is not still available. I frankly want to give a platform or an ambiguity to people who actually hold on to that particular aspect of Vermont history. And for that reason alone, I would urge that we strike it. Representative Leclerc have to ask the obvious question I guess based on that statement. Is there anybody today that points to that language and says that it's okay. Is slavery is okay or forced indenture to it is okay. I mean, can anybody give me an example of that. I know this is going to go through and I'm not advocating that it shouldn't, but you know, I think that there's a fair amount of conjecture around things like that. So I think that one of the people who testified the other day. And I'm not remembering his name at the moment was making reference to forced work in the context of the prison system. It's a form of slavery and that to the extent that people who are incarcerated are required to work are not paid of, you know, a living wage for their work for that other people are able to profit off of their work is a form of slavery. And I, and I guess, you know, when you look at it just purely on the surface, I, I agree with that. I agree that somebody who is not paid a fair wage is required to work as a, as a, as a person who is incarcerated and who for whom profit is made off of that labor is not fair. And should should be prohibited. I respect the opinion but I very much disagree. But that's why we're in this body. I don't look at somebody that's being incarcerated for the reasons that they are being required to do something as as I struggled to equate that to slavery. People can disagree. They can. I just wanted to say that the reference to indentured servitude and the clear prohibition in the language and prop to also removes the ambiguity of a question like this around, you know, labor in a prison right because you might not consider it slavery but it is an indentured. In my opinion, a form of indentured servitude. And we're saying in prop to this that that's that in any form indentured servitude is prohibited. And I think other other people have been proponents of us taking this step and changing the Constitution this way, you know, have talked about other forms of labor that is either, you know, not compensated or is compensated in a way, you know, like, you know, I think of people who are advertised to come here, whether legally or illegally from other countries and then are often compensated with housing and and other things but don't have a kind of fair So I think that we're sort of setting a bar and saying that, you know, we're not going to, we're not going to put people in this position in any form. Very, very clear. So, this is getting kind of complicated pretty quickly for me here. I thought we were just talking about the letters on the page. And now I've said I'm hearing that there's so much more that's going to get brought into this discussion. Quite quickly. You know, because I guess you're you're talking about people that come into work and dairy. I'm hearing about prisoners. For me I thought it was kind of clean after language but I have to say it concerns me to hear that it's being portrayed as something so much larger for so many other issues and I'm not going to pretend it doesn't trouble me so. I'm going to be a little bit more definitive Hooper than I see Lafave and Higley. Thank you Madam chair. You know, I think, maybe we're looking back on ancient history with a lens that is sort of focused on where we are today. There's a big difference in my mind between slavery where somebody shows up on your shore, runs up grabs you and throws you on a boat then somebody who says I want to go to America, and I will work for you for two years at a reduced salary it's sort of like the apprenticeship program we have today. And you know if you drive from Colchester to Milton you pass something on the left that is called poor farm road. Every community used to have the equivalent of, I don't have any money. You know this is what I have to do. It gets complicated when you get away from the clear slavery issue, I think, and maybe that dilutes what we're talking about or confuses its slavery thing has to go has to be clarified. I don't know the difference in the indentured servitude or those sort of things, which were much different South Carolina than they probably were in Vermont. It's going to get resolved but, you know, we're, we're hobbling ourselves I think to some degree by looking back from our own perspective here. Thank you. Representative V Hofsky. I am noticing yesterday and today that your, your hand raise in your square sort of appears to kind of disappear in the background of the white on the House Chamber walls in your virtual background. I'm just wondering if you might change that to a yellow hand, or a blue hand, or purple hand or something. I don't want to miss you in the queue because I didn't notice that you had your hand raised. So I'm going to go to Representative Lafayette, and then Higley and then I'll come to be hope speaking or someone else will go first. I'm still thinking. I just raised my hand so you didn't miss me. Okay, good. Representative Higley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, this discussion for me too has brought up some concerns. I certainly heard the representative from the Vermont law school talk about. If the Constitution is changed, the wording that is being proposed is is the correct wording. I was reassured with his statement in that regard but I mean if we're going to go down this whole road of looking and considering the ways that do certain work as indentured servitude. I would have to have a better knowledge of some of what prisoners do because my knowledge of what some prisoners do is not for the profit of somebody else it's for maybe cutting and splitting would for low income families. But again, I have a real concern and not completely knowing what prisoners in the state are required to do or asked to do so. We're going to go down that road I guess I need to have some more testimony in that regard. I'll be clear that I'm not, I'm not implying that that I think that this change in the Constitution is going to have the effect of law of saying that that our prison system has to change what it's doing currently I'm I was reflecting that the person who testified. His name. Yeah, he had funds on he was sitting in a dark. No, no, it was the guy from New Jersey. I'm running the national program. Max Parthas Max Parthas he he was saying that that prison labor is is a form of slavery. And so everybody has a right to say what they personally feel but again, you know, what is what does it come back how does how does that get, you know, drawn through the processes of the courts that would finally make that determination. I mean, yes, there's nothing about this that would instantly outlaw something other than slavery or indentured servitude and I don't think that you know I think that there would have to be more more legal process to to drill down into the forms of work that people in prison are subjected to. Representative Bihovsky. Thank you. The, to clarify what I recall Max Parthas saying is that forced prison labor is a form of slavery. And, you know, I think any anyone should have the choice to work but it should be a choice it shouldn't be forced they should not be unable to to if they've moved here unable to leave because of the wages they're making don't ever allow them to leave it's it, it should be a choice. And so for me, that was the piece really here is is the choice are we forcing people into slavery or indentured servitude and the words on the page are pretty clear that no we don't agree with that. And I think the nuance we could have a long conversation about the economic realities and I think those are bigger deeper conversations that aren't, as the chair has said immediately going to change. And by the by us declaring clearly and firmly that slavery and indentured servitude is wrong. I think the state might like totally disagree with that comment that if you've got somebody it's incarcerated and you have expectations and then to do something that again that we're going to make the comparison or analogy between slavery, and that I totally disagree with that. Senator Poston and then. Just just for some clarification. Our US Constitution the 13th Amendment reads, neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, where the party shall have been duly convicted shall exist within United States, or any place such to their jurisdiction. Thank you. Okay. So I just wanted to, I guess recap from the different things of from testimony that we heard and from today, you know, things that people are like throwing out things like apprenticeship and let me her testimony there was things like the bigger agenda. For me, looking at this when I first saw it there was no question like yes this is something that I support like I don't want anyone to ever think that they can hold somebody, or make them do work, or, you know, ever prison somebody like that that's not what we do here. Maybe that's not allowed and we won't tolerate that, but I don't like hearing the things of you know this is part of the bigger agenda this is part of where we're going to move on from and this is what we need to do like as a stepping stone because for me I don't take this lightly like a stepping stone this is something very big and something that we should be proud of what we're doing and so that that makes me bring pause to. Is this something that's just a check box and there's a bigger area they're trying to know that other people are trying to get to through this. Or is this something that actually is going to be done and then there's going to be changes to things that possibly could be going on here. So things like apprenticeship, people are have to do something to get somewhere and they're not paid a wage have to go through you have to work, and you don't get something like you're not getting a wage you're falling through. But you're choosing to be an apprentice is the difference, like I'm going to choose to apprentice to an electrician because I want to become an electrician, and, and I am willing to work for free, or for, you know, for very little because I want to learn the skills right. And so, and, and I hear that I also hear the same thing of the same thing and someone being in jail and I know rep Holston just read the amendment again but the testimony we heard someone chose to do a crime. You're in jail. Right, and he was quoting from the United States Constitution. I understand that from what we heard from testimony, people are seen to have a trail they are following. And I think that's probably true for everything that we do. Right. Every, every bill that we pass through here, somebody else might think, Oh, great. Now that they've done that I want to, I want to do a little bit more. You know, now that we've eliminated this eliminated this board or commission, I want to eliminate the next one, you know, so, like, everything that we do it, somebody else might be thinking of ways to build on it and I think the question that we have before is do we think it's right to move this constitutional amendment forward. This is not the be all end all like we are not adopting this constitutional amendment all we're saying is we it can advance to the next step in the process, which is that the full house considers it. And then it advances to the next step in the process, which is that it goes to the governor and the governor puts it on the November ballot for 2022 and then the next step in the process is that every Vermont or gets to vote on it. And so, you know, we may, we, you know, we could get bogged down in a lot of the details and a lot of the thinking about well what does this mean what you know what what more might happen at some point in the future. But the reality of the question that's before us is, do, do we believe that we should put this forward for the House to consider for the governor to consider and for Vermont. And I respect that and I respect the process but I don't take very light to what we are doing when we're changing our constitution and for me that's something that is a very big deal. And I don't appreciate it being a check mark on someone's agenda regardless of that's the truth or not this is something big that has affected, you know, and that personally has moved people in the room and people that are testifying. And it, to me I just didn't appreciate that. Well, I mean, I'm sure everyone at this table has done emails at the beginning of the session about various policy organizations or lobbying groups that have legislative agendas that they want to get passed and but you know, you know I think the question for us is, you know, is this the other thing to do is amend the Constitution. I really don't think that leads necessarily to a larger policy discussion of some other things that may or may not happen. I mean, I think it's this is is an issue in and of itself is whether we want to amend the Constitution to clarify the intent, our intent with respect to slavery, whether there are other policy issues involving racism is a discussion that will be dealt with and potentially other pieces of legislation. And we will have a debate about those issues that suffered an apartment. I don't see this as, you know, oh, if we pass this amendment, it's going to lead to x or why I really don't see that. But you know, others may disagree. I mean everybody has an agenda that comes into this building. I mean, and wants things from us, right. Yep. We're having a gender, but it doesn't seem to be too much. I don't know if representative cannon was was talking about us all having an agenda. Many of the people who come and testify before us. We all got it. Really true to one degree or nothing. We're having a discussion representative Anthony. Thank you madam chair. I was just reflecting. Even a limited view over the 100 years of the 20th century and the various amendments that have come and gone. I. I think for instance that the widening the franchise to that movement started at least 50 years prior and maybe more universal franchise citizen or no had been practiced in states and localities for a very long time before we actually as a people were able to vote to officially change the constitution to support the franchise in federal general elections to women. And I don't recall, but it could be wrong that people were lamenting the loss of some historical gym. They were treating it as simply a revision to match current thinking and current practice. Compared to 1791, when that original language was first agreed to by a bunch of white males. And I'm going to read the articles of confederation so I, you know, this sort of goes back to the, what is the Constitution represent is it is it a sort of dead document or a series of dead, dead articles, or is it meant to be along with the change in our society and I guess I'm part of the living document crowd. And so I don't lament that it was changed in the 20th century. And I know if I want to look at the original document I know where to look for it. And I can also do as Peter teach out did understand the context in which the original language was hatched. And that doesn't bind me as, as I, as I get a sense that some people are sort of stuck in, in a, in a, you know, well we can't change it because it was important in 1791. I just happen not to be part of that mindset. Thank you madam chair. So Andrea informs me that Paul Gillies is able to make himself available, which is really fantastic. I love that he has the flexibility and he will be here momentarily. I hesitate to give us a bio break lest we impolitely leave him sitting here alone in the room for 15 minutes. But Andrea if you have any other clarity in terms when you think he'll be here that might allow us to, to go off live and grab a cup of coffee or stretch our legs. Do let me know.