 I jump ahead to S-232 to take our vote on that. Posted, you should find the instances of amendment 232 is the implementation of the juvenile jurisdiction. Raise the age, that technical bill that was part of a larger bill. People remember what I'm talking about. I don't want to say repeat too much, but I also do want to refresh folks' memory. Let me see if I can. OK. So when we met on Friday, we looked at section 11, which we were asked to include, and that was the language regarding separate facilities. DOC and the word separate was taken out. My understanding had been that this was a technical amendment codifying current practice. And I know Barbara had had some concerns about the practice and whether or not we were codifying something that's not good policy. At that point, I felt that we were maybe going into House corrections jurisdiction. So I asked that committee to take a look at it. I also reached out to the Defender General's Office and did hear back from Marshall. I don't see Marshall here. I do see that Matt or Defender General is here, possibly for the other bill. But basically, the Defender General's Office position was that it is technical. It is codifying. And at this point, they were OK with that language. And I just heard from Representative Emins that their committee supports that language by a vote of 902. So I would like to leave it in there, and I'd like to move these instances of amendment, which basically allows the raise the age to be implemented. The older group, if you look at the effective dates, the 19-year-olds don't go into effect for me until a year from now, which is consistent. So I would like to move that because this is, as we heard from the commissioner of DCF, this is important for DCF to have to move our raise the age. We're raising. Well, I'm sorry. OK. I just want to really quickly make sure I fully understood. So we're voting on sections through section 11. And then that, is that correct? Those are the areas of our jurisdiction. Exactly. So 1-10 is the actual raise the age, and 11 has the DOC language in it. So right. And then the rest of it is regarded as regarding wood side, and that's been handled elsewhere. Tom and then Barbara. No, I'm all set now. Thank you. OK. Barbara. So, Maxine, I understand that the Defender General's office is OK with it. I still am concerned about it, like just philosophically, I don't think it's the right technical move and just feel like it goes against all the other work we've been doing related to brain development and treating people under 25 differently. So while I support the rest of the bill, I can't support that. I understand. And I appreciate you saying that. Will. Thanks. Yeah, I also share concerns about this. Marble Valley Correctional Facility is in my district. And the idea that there are some younger offenders who, technically, they're segregated from the main population. But the fact that they're in there does make me uneasy. It is not a trend I want to see built off of, quite frankly. On that said, I certainly recognize that we are in triple overtime here. I certainly do not want to sink the provisions of the rest of the provisions of the bill. So I guess I'm down for this one as a hesitant yes vote. Appreciate that. Tom. Yeah, I guess I just need a little background there and update on exactly who we're talking about. OK, so let me pull up 232. That might be the easiest because then you'll see the language. Yeah, I have it in front of me here. OK, so I don't. But I believe the word separate is taken out. That's to be deleted. And so it leaves the word appropriate. OK. And that's it, because right now my understanding from testimony is that in terms of separate facilities, DCF cannot do that. But they still will separate populations according to federal law and otherwise. And that appropriate is broad enough to, if at some point, separate facilities are possible, appropriate is broad enough to encompass that. I know, Martin, do you want to add anything? I know you looked at this as well. Well, I just thought, I mean, they're not prevented from having the separate facilities if they, in fact, consider it appropriate. I mean, appropriate is pretty broad. So it would subsume having a separate facility in the instances where that is deemed appropriate. Maybe I'm being too legalese on this, but separate is subsumed by the appropriateness of the facilities. And I did find that the fact that Marshall weighed in and that they were fine with this, and he's been a great advocate for dealing with this issue, certainly convinced me that we should proceed with this. Does that help, Tom? Oh, yeah, definitely. I'm all set on it now. I'm going to assume that there was probably some discussion on this Friday. And the Reader's Digest version today certainly gave me enough information to be able to support it. Yeah, we were rushed on Friday, and so it was a quick discussion. And my understanding was that this was a technical amendment and thought that squeezing it on Friday would be OK. And then Barbara raised understandable concerns, which is why I put the boat on hold on Friday. Yeah, I mean, in a perfect world, our ages wouldn't be 18 or 19 or 21. They would be 25. And as time goes on with a lot of things that we do, do, and do pass, we're making baby steps toward that age of 25 and a lot of different instances. I mean, and sometimes I know myself, I just have to look at that as progress, even though we may not be getting to the pot of gold, I guess you could say, but we're certainly taking steps in the direction. Great, thank you. So anybody else on this? OK, and I did reach out. As we were talking, I did reach out to our defender general and ask him if he wanted to add anything. And he said that he doesn't, that Marshall has handled the portion of this. As we discussed it, he is good with it. And I agree and understands that it, for some folks, is a compromise. So I thank the defender general. Ken? I'm OK with this because I think as we're going through a process with these different correctional facilities, I would hope the Department of Corrections will make necessary steps moving forward that if we have a problem, they'll do something different to protect the under 25. Great. Otherwise, we're going to keep shipping people out of state. And that's not what we want to do and everything like that. And I think it's just an adjustment period that I remain optimistic that it's going to work. Thank you. Thank you. OK, Barbara, and then I'm looking at the time. I'm hoping that after Barbara, I'm hoping we could take a vote on this. Thank you. So I'm wondering how amenable the committee would be to adding any language that says, because again, what Ken just said sort of cemented it for me. Like, it's too easy for DOC to say, see, we've just got to do this because we're going to otherwise have to do that. And the recidivism rate for, I mean, this nationally, I don't know if we have the data in Vermont, is going to be higher for young people that are incarcerated or are in programs with older prisoners. And I just don't want to give the message that we're OK with it. Like, it shouldn't take the pressure off of DOC. And I understand that the Defender General's Office is OK with it. But I think as the legislature, it's just important for us to say we stand by keeping young people in the mindset of being able to be rehabilitated and not necessarily exposing them in these situations. So I feel strongly about not supporting it unless there's some language that might speak to the concerns. I understand that I do see that Defender General Matt Valerio came on. Did you want to weigh in or are you? I wasn't. I've been watching the whole time. And I'm clearly familiar with the bill. One of the things, if you are in our role as part of the Defender General system is you're used to baby steps. And you're used to incremental positive steps toward where you hope to get. And as Representative Burdett said, ideally, you want to see, based on the science that we know today, an accommodation for people who go up to age 25, 26. But when, as a practical matter, that's probably not going to happen, you get the best that you can out of the situation. And Marshall has worked this bill and he's been working on this issue literally for years. And it's something that we really started on this 10 years ago. And with trying to get deferred sentences, eligibility for deferred sentences little by little up from 18 years old, then it was 21 years old, then it was 26 years old. And now this is deferred over the objection of the state's attorney. And now it's eligible for everybody. Age isn't the factor. And this is another one of those things on the checklist that we're making incremental progress on. We don't expect, we'd love to see being able to get the whole enchilada, as they say. But we also understand the political reality of it. And we'll take what we can get and go back to work at it next year. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that, Matt. Thank you. OK, so given our time and the testimony we've had, I would appreciate a motion to support draft 1.2 of S-232. So moved. Second? OK. Second. OK. Second. OK. Thank you. And so why don't we do a show of hands, all those in favor, please? And not if you can help me. It's a little tricky because there's so many people on the screen. Sure. OK. And then all those opposed. OK. So I am just seeing one opposed. Barbara, is that correct? I want to make sure. Barbara was the only one that I saw as well. Yes, I'm going to vote now. No, I appreciate that. That's fine. Right. Thank you. OK. All right. Great. And then coach is the only one who is absent, correct? OK. Great. And all right. And folks, if anybody would like to report it, let me know. But right now, let's get back to the Senate bills because I do see government operations is here with us.