 Good afternoon. This is the afternoon meeting of the House Appropriations Committee on March 16th. And we're delighted to welcome the chair of the House Healthcare Committee to give us an overview of H210, the Health Equity Bill. And as you know, Chair Lippert, our, you know, if you could give us a broad overview of what the bill is trying to accomplish and then bring us quickly to the appropriations request. And that would be terrific. So thank you. And I will turn this over to you for your presentation. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. I will do my best to be brief, really. Having reviewed some of this previously with your committee, but H210 is, let me start by saying H210 comes to you from the House Healthcare Committee and it is a substantial piece of work that we are moving forward to address what we, and I think we all have come to understand are the significant health disparities which have been now more have been revealed in more vivid way and more shocking way and distressing way as a result of COVID. I think many of us understood that there were health disparities based on race. But when we look at the data about how who is being disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, it is clear that the disproportionality is centered on issues of race, issues of disability, and some other marginalized communities. The H210 at its core came to the House Healthcare Committee having been crafted by members of the impacted communities, particularly from the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance, who put together this bill. And we have modified it in consultation and in consultation with the originators of the bill, and with, after taking extensive testimony from the affected communities. The three primary affected communities that this bill intends to address around health disparities and working toward health equity are community Vermonters, who are members of the communities affected by race or who are well some refer to the BIPOC, Black, Indigenous, People of Color, the LGBTQ communities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning communities, and the communities of disability. And of course there are cross, there's intersections between these communities as well. But what you have in front of you is probably the longest set of findings you're going to find in a bill for many of years, and I'm not going to try to go through the findings, but the findings really are all based in data. Because we know from many people, we hear stories and anecdotes of health disparities, but the originators of the bill, as well as our committee, felt it was very important to actually anchor the findings in studies and surveys. In fact, so every finding has a reference to the source documentation. Originally, the bill intended to establish an office of health equity in the Department of Health, but because the Department of Health is 24 seven dealing with COVID we realize that this is not. And their, their testimony, of course, said, you know, they're, they're rightly addressing COVID 24 seven. They also testified, however, that the bill is completely consistent with the findings of the Department of Health around health equity issues. They have done work that is cited again in our findings, where they identify the same three communities around race and ethnicity, LGBTQ issues, and disabilities as three of the primary areas where health disparities stand out the most. In order to move forward without burdening the Department of Health at a time when they need to be continued focusing on COVID, and simultaneously trying to what we're trying to empower the impacted communities. We are moving forward with trying to stand up what is the Commission on the Health Equity Advisory Commission, which is a large commission. Not your traditional commission, it's made up of 27 members of the impacted communities and representatives of state government. We are turning to them under the leadership of the Director of Racial Equity, the Office of Racial Equity, the Director of Racial Equity has agreed to take the lead in standing up this Health Equity Advisory Commission, and to work with them to help determine the path forward for establishing the Office of Health Equity. And this is an important additional change to the proposal, because it empowers the impacted communities to have a greater voice in determining where, how and whether this office should be independent or located within state government perhaps still and likely I hope personally within the Department of Health. But this this bill, again, works with the Director of Racial Equity to give her office additional resources, transitional temporary resources to stand up this commission, which then will be will with those resources the commission will then consult on the structure and placing the Office of Health Equity, and will also be able to receive grants significantly be able to receive grants because we believe there's access to federal monies as well. That will be important in moving forward with the Office of Health Equity. Again, I think it's significant that this commission is made up of the impacted communities. It's also charged in its duties and powers with advising both all areas of state government, as well as the General Assembly on efforts to improve, to improve the status of these impact, eliminate health disparities over time. We also direct the commission to advise rather than to direct, we're rather than us saying what what kind of cultural competencies should be put forward for health providers in the state of Vermont. We again are going to turn to this commission and have the commission have input in how and to what degree additional cultural competencies should be. I'm sorry. That's something I can't do. Do you all hear what I'm hearing? It sounds like you activated Siri by mistake. I did with no intention and suddenly I was getting assistance I wasn't looking for these times that were in or beyond me. So I think what I was saying is that we're going to turn to the commission to also advise on the types and levels of cultural competency that health care providers in Vermont should be required to have and with what frequency the original bill had a specific two hours of continuing education focused specifically on MDs we realize that it needs to be broader than medical physicians. And then lastly, but not insignificantly is that we are also asking for data collection to be revised and you previously is the Appropriations Committee have previously helped appropriate some funds around issues of health disparities in terms of collecting appropriate data across all health care entities in the state of Vermont. We're looking to the Green Mountain Care Board, the Department of Health, and the Office of Racial Equity to participate in helping to review and designing and proposing standardized collection of data across all parts of health care in the state of Vermont. Without the appropriate data, we can't tell for certain in some areas whether there's health disparities or not. But it needs to be disaggregated in some parts of state government needs to be collected because it's not being collected at all. So that there's there's work to be done there as well. I think I've covered the key points of the bill. But again, to reiterate, the key issue is that we, we are looking to this commission to be assisted or to be stood up under the direction of the Office of Racial Equity, and that we're going to appropriate that we're recommending appropriating $180,000 to this office for the engagement of some temporary assistance in the form of either a consultant or consultants to provide per diem and expenses to this commission and to and you previously have appropriated some money around the issues of data. And with that, I guess I would like to reiterate that this is the creation. This is, this is in some ways the equivalent of creating some infrastructure around health disparities that I think you have a proposal in front of you to help create some infrastructure around from commerce and businesses of BIPOC community in Vermont where there needs to be some additional or the Commerce Committee is recommending that there needs to be some additional infrastructure created to help address the issues in that realm. And this is I think the next step in doing this for help eliminating health disparities. Thank you. Representative leopard representative. So we have a few questions. Representative Harrison. Yeah, thank you. And thank you chair Lippert for bringing this forward. I guess I have a couple of questions. First of all, I don't know if I ever remember seeing a commission set up where you ran out of alphabet letters and you had to go into a second round. I think there's like 27 members. Number one. How many. There are 27 you counted 27. Okay. So, I guess I worry about is it too large and how did you. Well, can I speak to that. This commission is set up specifically to have representation from each of the affected communities the issue communities around issues of race and ethnicity communities around LGBTQ persons and, and the disabilities community. And the anticipation is that this, this commission, while it may meet in its entirety would also work in subgroups. So that this is not just a matter of a group of 27 people trying to do work that might, in fact, be challenging in its entire with the entirety of the group, but we anticipate and under the leadership of the director of racial community. I think it's been suggested that one of the ways to move forward with some of the work of this commission would be in subgroup work groups. Okay, so when they met and subgroups would they also be entitled to. Yes, yes. And of the 180,000 appropriation the bill asked for. There's some language in here is just suggesting that the per diems are out of the 180. Do we know what the breakdown is, because you also mentioned that you might be to bring this start this up need to hire some consultants and whatnot. So of the $180,000 we anticipate and this is an this is an estimate at this point we anticipate that the per diem and expenses could range from $12,000 to $20,000, depending on the frequency with in this nature or the full group subgroups etc. We speak to that for a moment because in fact it's it's not tradition it's not traditionally done this way. It's traditionally done saying the legislature says you shall meet X number of meetings. And when those meetings are done, you're done. We in fact are turning it's this on its head deliberately and saying the group that we are proposing to put together here is empowered to determine how often they meet the frequency within which with which they meet initially in order to accomplish themselves and be able to move forward. The director of racial equity met with our we heard testimony on number of occasions. And one of the things she brought forward to us was in her experience, and some of you have perhaps have heard her or had her report on her own office of racial equity. That in fact what was important initially was not just that they had X number of meetings. But she used a phrase which made a big impact on me and that is process equity. That when you empower a group of people to come together when you empower a group of people to come together, particularly from impacted communities. We also need to turn to them to allow their knowledge and their lived experience to inform the process, not just the content. And that she felt and she learned in the process in the in the order of creating the office of racial equity and working with her advisory group that prop what's called process equity was equally important. And you need to we need to empower those impacted to have a voice, not just the legislature of those of us frankly which are most of us, some of us are from those impacted communities but frankly the vast majority of us are not. I mean, I appreciate that structure limit. Yeah, no, I appreciate that because how are we to know how many meetings are actually needed. Conversations that need to happen, but we do it because we don't, you know, we don't have the ability to, you know, put a blank check if they decide to meet every week. Absolutely. Yeah. On the commission here. Yesterday, we were looking at an education bill that set up a new group and we, we put a sunset in there after three years to review it, not necessarily to expire it, but to review it and have the legislature. You know, force it to look at it. Is this still necessary? Do we need to do that? I'm wondering if you thought about that in the context of this bill. To be honest, we didn't give it lengthy consideration, because in fact, I think we have come to a realization that issues of health disparities have been decades, in fact, more than decades, one might say, many, many, many decades in the making. We thought that we could sunset and not need something to address these issues in a period of two years, three years just doesn't seem doesn't seem to on his face make sense. What might make sense is to be able to review whether this particular structure has the efficacy that we're hoping it will have. And I guess I would entertain that, but part of my hesitate, I'll be honest and say part of my hesitation is the message that it would send. I think we're at a point in a moment in time when I'm not wanting to send a message to impacted communities that, well, we, we think it's important but only two years worth important or three years important. I don't need to be thoughtful. Let's think about that but I would, I would want to be careful about how we, what we inadvertently message about this, what I think is a tremendously important issue. Well, I appreciate that but I think also sunsets are a good idea to force you to look at it. Do we have the right makeup of people. I'm just done through a commission or some other way that I don't think that minimizes the issue that you're you're bringing to the table here. Thank you. So we have some other questions Dave. Sure. Yeah, I know you want to move fast so I'll try to be quick madam chair. Did you just elaborate, Chair Lippert a little bit more on the remaining 160,000. It's for a consultant, exclusively anything else. Well it's, it has. I'll tell you how I backed into it to be honest and thinking about it. But we're not asking for, we're not asking for you to allocate a position, but the position if a position would come with the cost of a salary and benefits, etc. And so we initially were thinking, what would what would what would be reasonable range of salary and benefits to be equivalent to that. And so we thought in terms of that, as well as some additional funds. In the order of I think I was, when I came in previously I reviewed this but it was like 140,000 dollars to be the equivalent of salary and benefits. And this is roughly allocated $20,000 for additional bringing in expert witnesses or that's a legal term I'm going back to judiciary afraid, but to bring in consultants with expertise to work to consult with the commission, and 12 to $20,000 for the per diem and expenses. So we anticipate that they could that the director social racial equity would contract with either a firm or an individual or maybe individuals for this, what is really a transitional process of working with and standing up the commission and the initial work of determining whether and how an office of health equity should be cited the nature of continuing education, and to be part of the data process. So, I think you addressed this the other day but I can't recall exactly. I think it lends itself to a one time appropriation. Thank you, thank you, thank you, I meant to mention that because I think it actually absolutely lends itself to the use of because it's transitional is short term. And because the, I think the findings make it very clear, and I think lots of work beyond the findings, the impact of coven has revealed the health disparities are profound in Vermont, as well as across the nation, but, but we're not an exception to that. So yes, thank you I had that my notes but I failed to mention it that this I think lends itself quite legitimately to the use of one time funds related to the coven pandemic. So is it fair to say this is just my lay person summary. This is a transitional investment or resources, if you will, to stand up a commission, a commission that will help frame this work for the future, perhaps identify some metrics by which success or failure might be measured, etc. And to recommend and to recommend whether and how to have ongoing infrastructure to address these over time. And to do it to do this under the leadership, again the transitional leadership of the director of racial equity from the state of Vermont, who has expressed a willingness to take this on with the additional resources made available. I want to be very clear as well. If we're not if we're not we're not able or willing to make additional resources available to the director of racial equity. We should not then give her office this additional responsibility. And I think this is I haven't said this today but I did previously from our point of view our committee's point of view this is contingent on the legislature and the governor's office, filling the filling the proposal to add to additional on an ongoing basis with positions and funding. Thank you, chair leopard I'm looking to the committee to see if there are any other questions. And not seen any. So I'm looking at section six on the appropriation. So, to the area of our jurisdiction. I'm not here and personally in agree with it's neither here nor there but I understood your suggestion that this is a different that that we should be seeing the establishment of this organization. In a different way than the traditional way we think about counts about councils or committees of the, you know, we're going to do five meetings a year and it's going to be organized to look like this. You said you were turning to the, the group of folks that you believe are best able to address the issues that that you're asking them to look at, and to suggest to us, how to organize this work. And in the first year of that effort, you're proposing that we spend $180,000. Sorry, you could do millions. Yeah, that's that's the way we're behaving today. $80,000 on what you've described. Right. And I, I, I understand that in this section, it goes on to say is your it's the intent that we make similar appropriations until an office is established. Okay, that's something that gets us extremely uncomfortable. And we won't even talk about binding future legislation, which we know we cannot do. Yeah. I can imagine amending that to say to asking this group to propose, if they believe necessary, future of a budget for the work as it continues so we would make an appropriation for this year. We would entertain the notion that, well, well, one day we have to live within the $180,000 box that is created if we all agree to that. That is what is appropriated not an additional amount because they have more meetings or whatever that's what they have would work within that. Yeah. And that they would bring, rather than saying it's our intent, but we would say, bring us back a budget proposal for the following year if necessary. So to try to corral that a little bit better. Yeah, okay. That seems consistent with what our hope is. Yeah, and that and then that would have to be looked at on a year to year basis to, you know, as, as we do with everything else we, we do. I just, I think the, yeah, I think that that that's consistent with the view of our committee I'd say. Okay. Okay, they and I'm looking to the committee, Marty. I'm wondering about reporting back on their activities and that sort of thing and I, I did see one about continuing education and now I see something on page 19 about reporting back before January 15 to the various committees regarding any recommendations for legislative action. It doesn't say January 15, when are that maybe that's in some previous stuff that I wasn't able to scan. It says annually on January 15, I believe. Is that what you're looking for on page 19 line 10. Yes, okay. Annually. So this would be, so I mean, we would be finding a, we would be looking for a report in January 15 of 2000. 22, these numbers are to. Yeah, as an initial report. But of course, at that point, they may not have been able to do all the work that is contemplated, but I think a report would be anticipated. Yes. And I think, I guess I daresay. I beg your pardon. Go ahead. I definitely believe we need a report on what their activities have been and what they foresee for future activities. Okay. And I think, well, I think, I think, I think, you know, you're, you're right, you're absolutely right. And I think it calls for legislative recommendations, but I think in maybe we missed making explicit what we should make explicit, which is a report on the activities and accomplishments to that point in time as well as any legislative accomplishments or recommendations. Yeah, I understand that. Okay. And I think I, because this is such an important issue to the house health care committee, I can assure you that our committee, at least in the next half of the biennium one in leadership in the committee. We will be asking them to give us some kind of updates periodically of the movement forward. But we would entertain any amendment you might make to make that explicit. I'm wondering if that's our jurisdiction. I guess it is if we're saying please give we're paying for a report. Well, well, I, I'm not feeling strongly about that and I'm not seeing others feel about that hearing you say that is the intention and that you will do that. Yeah, I'm having my usual problem with the word of by monthly. Does that mean twice a month or every two months. I think it means every two months but I think the real point is that says I think at least. And, and we, we, I think we put language in there that says the, the commission show be constrained by the appropriation given in terms of and help and the allocation of dollars. Yeah. Okay, well, and that is actually what I was wondering if the math works, if they need every at least every other every other month and they're at least that many people and again they're going to be I'm sure there's going to be some and at least the calculations that I've been party to should they I think they should be able to work within that budget and that the director of racial equity in the RFP or contracting for additional assistance would be needing to balance the the dollars available to accomplish the task within $180,000. Without us being more prescriptive. Thank you. And did you kind of do a count of how many people are eligible for per diems this is just the nitty gritty of what I think you'll find you'll find there's an updated fiscal note that has been posted from Nolan. And I think the estimate was 18. Okay. Okay. Committee, do you have any further questions of chair leopard. I'm not seeing any and show we take a quick look at the fiscal note with Nolan since he is sitting here with us. Have you all opened it up. Hi Nolan, thanks for joining us. I'm trying to find the document. I'm guessing it's pretty straightforward and some on the committee website and you might need to refresh your browser. Yeah, thank you. I just hadn't opened it. And I'm sorry to make folks wait while I look for something. Yeah, yeah. Do you want to send it to you as an attachment. You know all I see. Oh, well, no, there it is. Sorry. Got it. Yeah, sometimes they move around it's kind of odd. Yeah. So committee, do you have any questions about the fiscal note. All right. Okay. Okay. I'm going to go back to the middle mood. It is very straightforward. And while we have Katie sitting with. So Nolan, I think we don't have any questions. While we have. Katie here with us. We do in section six under appropriations. And then this letter B, small B, it is in the intent to similar appropriation. So I think we may need to have some different language there. I'm not sure what that looks like, but let's figure it out. Jim. Yeah, thank you. Madam chair, I wanted to go back to the fiscal note. If no one's still here. Yeah, I'm just looking through this quickly and I just. Hopefully you can shed some light on it and section three. Can you help us understand the 165,000. Some of it general fund, some of it's special fund where that special fund is. Sure. Coming from, and then years that 130. 4,000 to the department of health. Can you just help us understand that. Sure. For the record and all nine while the joint fiscal office and. First thing I'll say is that that 200,000 was already appropriated in age three 15. So it doesn't actually appropriated here. I just flag it because it was initially brought up as part of the negotiations and the committee. Put it in their, in their prior and their. Recommendations and you approve. I remember that. Okay. I'm not going to flag it and then I say it's elsewhere, but what that just answered question, the special fund. So it goes to the green mountain care board. And so that's billback money. So that's money that is matched or is that, that the green mountain care board went as a regulator. They bill back in other words, the regulated entities pay a portion of their, of their. Of their costs and they do this for a lot of things that they regulate and this falls under that billback authority. And then for the other part, it would just be general fund. All right. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So returning again to the appropriation section. Is there. So I think we're in agreement that B cannot stay as is. And. I, I think, or no, I suggested that we ask the group to propose a budget to us. And I guess we would have to ask them to propose that in time for consideration in the next. So by January. First or 15th of. 22. March, March of 2018 year, something like that. Thank you, Peter. I'm just trying to frame something to get us moving. Yeah. And actually I think that in order to meet the timeline for budget submissions, if we want it to come in under a normal budget concept, it actually needs. I don't know what the timeframe is for the agency of if we wanted it submitted to be part of the normal budget in lieu of an add-on. Add-on, yeah. Okay, so we need to pick a date, but is that the general concept that we would be looking for to ask them to bring us a proposal if they think they need to continue doing work in 23, FY23, to bring us a proposal through the normal budgeting process? Is that the agreement here? That would be my recommendation that we do it through the normal budgeting process. Okay, and Maria or Nolan, can you suggest a date for that? I guess it depends on when the administration puts out their budget instructions. Maria, do you recall? That's probably about the time when they start providing their responses to the initial budget instructions is probably about the right time. Yeah, I think that's sometime in October. I can look on our website and see what the date is for the budget instructions. I believe it's in October, but let me just say. Yeah, we can always put October 15th for now. And I would recommend that if you're gonna do that, you put it under the powers and duties section. So if you go to page 17 where it says subsection C, powers and duties, the advisory commission shall, and then maybe for number six, which would be on page 19, create number six and shall provide to department of finance management or whoever. I don't know who would go to. That's where I'd put that. That's where I might recommend putting that sentence. I don't know. Katie has any thoughts on that. Yeah. It seems to me where it should go rather than an appropriation section. Okay. I would be cautious about putting it there because it's a one time report and you're putting it into codified law. So I would, I would instead suggest creating a standalone session law section, just for that one report that you're expecting to receive. Okay. We'll leave the mechanics of making this work to Katie to figure out the smart way to deal with it. Let me just suggest that I'm a wee bit worried about picking a date like October 15th because that will be all of what, three and a half months since the group was formed. And how do they know what they're doing? I'm concerned about that, but I'll leave it to you all. Peter, good idea. Not sure that it mechanically work. So it may have to be outside of it. I might go back to telling us what they think they need. You know, the first of the new year, at least gives them a half a year. Jim. Yeah. I agree. Madam chair that, you know, I would go with the January and fairness to the new commission. And the fact that it's being shared by the director, director of racial equity, who hopefully would have an idea of what the ask might be going forward. Can certainly ask within the agency of administration to give a consideration than the governor's recommend for the following year. I just wanted to quickly go back to the sunsetting provision. If we are saying we're funding it for one year and that a report come back with terms of future. If we don't fund it, my assumption would be the commission goes away or does it stay, but there's no money allocated? I'm just, I'm asking on a hypothetical. I just wanted to know how we might consider that going forward. I can. I don't know. Maybe that's for Katie or Nolan. I don't know. Sure. It's codified. The way it's drafted is it's codified. It would be in the green book. Says an ongoing existing committee. So if you choose to not fund it, the duties and responsibilities in the office itself would still be set up in law, but it wouldn't be funded. So could, could they meet? But they meet and get per diems. If there's no money allocated. Well, if there's no, I, I, I don't know that I have a great answer for that. I mean, they're authorized to meet. They're authorized to get a per diem if there's no money there. I'm not sure how that would function, but it doesn't. The fact that there's not money there doesn't mean that they don't have the authority to meet anymore. That's interesting. Thank you. I mean, I think maybe this is the conversation for next year in terms of, you know, what's the future? Should the commission be expanded? Done differently, different makeup, et cetera. In conjunction with the funding. So I'm, I'm just. Asking how do we handle the sunset. So. I think though, too, in terms of the budget piece, like, um, you know, if, you know, the first year it's envisioned to be. You know, sort of under. The office of racial equity and in theory, if it's still going to be, if the following year is determined, it's under the office of racial equity, then the pregems would in theory may be built into their budget. Because that's where the money's going through. Or if there's a health equity created, then it would be part of their budget or if there's another, whatever. So I do think that there's going to be some kind of, you know, some kind of, you know, some kind of health equity created, then it would be part of their budget or if there's another, whatever. So I do think that. You know, and if they don't have any recommendations by the time that happens, I imagine the office of racial equity will include it in her budget. To the extent that she is that that will exist. So that's one way. You know, some oftentimes with these pregems when they're very, very small amounts, like under $3,000, it's just built into their budget or I don't appropriate money. So this is a little bit different. That's the point. I think as. Thank you. As Jim suggested, this becomes a question for what we do next year. By funding it for one year and asking for a proposal. We, we create the opportunity to ask the questions that we're asking now at a more relevant time. So I'm just being mindful of the time and I'm just being mindful of the time and I'm just being mindful of the time and people's resources. I think. We're in agreement that we do not. We think that section six small B needs to be struck, which is the reference to future biennium. Or a funding. Or intention rather for futures. So I'm just being mindful of the time and I'm just being mindful of the time and effort that's being made. And I'm just being mindful of the time and effort that's being made in the past and budget. By a date that makes sense in January of 23. Katie, do you need more information from us to do what you need to do? No, my thought is that I will have language. And I will have it on my phone. I'll just get to the question here. I mean, I don't know if I'm going to get it by 27 if, if funding is necessary. But just tie it into a report. So you don't have a report coming in January one and another one coming in January 15th. Okay. Thank you. That's, that sounds like a good solution. Does that, I made I see your hand and I'll come to you in a second. Let's just finish this. Are people generally. Okay. With what's being suggested there. starting, you know, saying, no, that's not what we met when Katie gives us something. Okay, so I'm hearing we're generally okay with that. made up. Thanks. I just wanted to confirm that we are not contemplating including sunset language for this bill. Correct. That is correct. The way we're going to leave it is if we will consider a budget next year on chair Lippert said, they're going to be watching this. They're going to be having conversations, and I'm sure we will be having a conversation with his committee about if and what a budget should look like for this organization next year. Thank you. Thank you. What made me a little nervous was that I had heard the word sunset a couple of more times after that initial back and forth and to, from my perspective, I was highly ill at ease in thinking that health equity issues could be dealt with in a couple of years when it's taken lifetimes for people in these situations. Thanks. Yeah, thank you. Okay. Do we have any other questions that will help us in understanding this bill and the appropriation? Katie needs to scoot. We'll hear from you when you're able with this amendment. Chair Lippert, thank you very much, Katie. Chair Lippert, do you have a timing issue on this? I'm just trying to think of when we need to conclude our work on this. No, I think, as a reporter of the bill, I'm comfortable when you're moving it out whenever you choose and it doesn't have to happen in, it doesn't have to happen swiftly. We had a conversation with another reporter of another bill about when they got their COVID shot and just wanting to make sure they were healthy and on their game. So I'm now very aware of different things that can influence. But you've got it. Now, I have a second COVID shot scheduled midweek next week and I'm thinking, you know, I tried to get it moved to Friday, but they wouldn't. No, no. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much for your time. As you say, we're going to have an amendment and we'll let you know where it is. Dave is our liaison and we'll report this amendment on the floor. And if we have any questions, he'll be talking to you. Dave and I'll stay in touch. Yeah. And I didn't want to, it may fall in Peter's bailiwick. I didn't want to offend Peter. Peter, is this something you want to run with? Okay. If I may, because this is really beyond my area of knowledge, but as to the issue of whether this money would be money that came from one time funds or other funds leave to your committees for their deliberation. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. We've got it on the list. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much for your time here and your work on this important bill. We very much, I very much appreciate it. Thank you.