 Okay, good morning, everyone. This is Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. We are here to look at an amendment from the Senate on S-352. And so with us this morning is our legal counsel, Damian Leonard, who will walk us through the amendment and we'll take and can take questions after that. So good morning, Damian. Thank you for joining us. Good morning, everyone. Nice to see you all. Looks very sunny down in Brattleboro, Representative Tolino. Tell us of that. It is very nice out here too. I think not not quite as nice as that. So I'm going to share my screen here. And the amendment is fairly straightforward and wording. What this did is it struck representative TILS floor amendment for resident physicians and dentists and otherwise left S-352 as recommended by this committee and the Committee on Health and Human Services. Questions. Damian, this is just the previous language was earns in the present tense and the current version is earned in the past tense. Does that have any bearing on the actual legislation itself? It does. The reason that we've switched it to the past tense is because we were concerned about what they were earning during the eligible period, not what they're currently earning. We don't want someone to have gotten a raise from 2450 to 2525 to suddenly be disqualified. That was part of the group of changes that I neglected to make at the end of the spring session. Because we'd already moved past the eligible period there even though the bill when it was originally introduced was in the middle of that eligible period. So that does drafters error that's being corrected. Did the Senate get a fiscal note on representative TILS amendment? Yeah, so the estimates for representative TILS amendment is that it would cost about a half a million dollars. They didn't get an official fiscal note, but that was the estimate from Joyce and Chloe. And the other piece that was added in the House, which was in 353, was the unemployment insurance piece where the House took out the exclusion for individuals who'd received unemployment insurance. And the estimate that joint fiscal came up with that was one and a half million. So the understanding that I have from the Senate discussion of this is that because of the budget implications for representative TILS amendment and the changes the House made in 353, they pushed representative TILS amendment off to be dealt with, along with the changes in 353, potentially in the big bill rather than in 353. So it's not clear to me if the Senate is going to send back 353. Or if they're going to move that over to the big bill to just be settled with the rest of the budget. I don't want to go too deep into that unless the chair would like me to discuss what the Senate's been doing with 353 and then I'm happy to fill everyone in but for the moment that's where the representative TILS piece went. It's not that the Senate necessarily thinks it's a bad idea to give to make resident physicians and dentists eligible for hazard pay. So I think that they wanted to deal with the funding issues. Altogether rather than piecemeal. Okay, thanks Damien. Yep. Charlie. Zach asked my questions thank you Zach but so in that paragraph that's underlined the only change in that is the earned and during the eligible period is that right. My question was, so the, the, it goes back to what past house commerce before the till amendment so the two changes were from past tense. And I'm sorry guys, my battery is about to die. Can I excuse myself for one minute to go get that. I'll be right back. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. You mean why we supported rather than him till his amendment and then potentially we'll support this. Yeah. Yeah. Well we have there's never a guarantee but it sounds like the Senate wants to and I, it makes sense is to move it into the budget. Yeah. There's a couple of money's there that the money's already been allocated for this piece. So that's over that in the 1.5 for the, if we, if they go along with removing anyone that was on UI, including them in hazard pay them. And that's new money that they want to deal with in the budget by the sounds of it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. If you're plugged in. Yes, thank you. Sorry about that. I didn't know who's getting so low. Suddenly you had a legendary performance with a coffee cup earlier too. So. Yeah, you've, you've. It's been a tough day here. So. Yeah, I spent a fair amount of time getting coffee stains out of stuff. So it hit my phone and a bunch of my wife's stuff. So almost as bad. Yeah. It could be worse. Yeah. So. The other thing that's in there besides the tense change is the visiting nurses and contract nurses that work for home health. And nursing homes are exempted from the $25 an hour cap, which was something that this committee passed. And it's original amendment. So. Right. I just thought what was different. From what we passed that the Senate sent back to us. Why are we looking at that particular paragraph? Yeah. It was the till language that was added on the floor. Sorry. Yeah. They're leaving that to be dealt with. Other budgetary questions and 353. Got it. I forgot that we had to include it in that paragraph as well. We've got it. Yep. Yeah. Any. Any more questions. Okay. Everyone. Okay. Understand. Want to take a, make a motion to vote. So I'd entertain a motion. So. Accept it. We, we accept the Senate's. Concur with the Senate proposal. That's exactly what I was going to say, Mr. Chair. Words out of my mouth. Okay. Okay. Representative Sullivan. Zero second. Second. Take a pic. I saw, I saw one light go on, but I didn't see the other. Second by a representative Kimball. To concur with the Senate proposal of amendment. Is there any further discussion? Okay. If not the. Clerk can call the roll. Representative bankrupt. Yes. Representative Bob. Yes. Representative Carol. Yes. Representative Dickinson. Yes. Representative Jerome. Yes. Representative Kimball. Yes. Representative Mark Hott. Yes. Representative Morris. Yes. Representative Oh Sullivan. Yes. and representative Watson yes okay 11-0-0 Charlie you'll report that yeah right I back you up thank you Damian would you like to fill us in on what's happening with 353 I'd be happy to so a question with 353 right now there are two things one is so as you probably know at this point the Senate sent back its version of 353 combined with its version of 352 in the big bill we've just addressed 352 here so that is going to move forward so that leaves the issue of 353 the Senate's concern center around the representative Till's amendment and then the expansion to individuals who'd received UI and the estimate there is the combined total for those two is two million dollars that doesn't fall within the appropriated money at this point and so they're concerned with the hazard paypiece is really do we find that money or do we somehow trim those down to make it affordable so one of the questions that Joint Fiscal was asked to look at the other day was just if we trimmed it down to folks who had only received a shorter period of UI such as one or two or three weeks of UI during that period would the estimate for the cost with UI there come down significant way I don't know the answers to that at this point I know Joyce has been looking into that and trying to figure out an estimate but that kind of the two the two kind of main pieces and it really came down to the the cost issue the other things going on the bill as you'll remember the UI pieces the your counterpart in the Senate the Economic Development Committee used to be leaning towards not changing the wage base or UI contribution rate next year or at least not making the change at this point so letting the wage base drop to 14,100 instead of keeping it the same and then addressing the tax rate issue next year if it needs to be addressed but otherwise letting it go to schedule five they like I said they appear to be leaning that way based on their discussions but they haven't taken a formal vote at this point the other things that are going on there they've been looking at the issue of the penalty weeks issue to try to determine if they want to do something different delay addressing that until later and I'm not sure they've come to a conclusion and then the committee seems to be just fine with clarifying the good cause reasons to refuse employment that piece that piece doesn't seem to be controversial at all but this morning they spent a lot of time talking to the the Department of Labor and yesterday as well about the taxable wage base the tax schedules and then this whole issue of the penalty weeks and I'm not sure where they're going to end up there ultimately because they just haven't taken a vote yet they kind of left it as they're going to return to the issue at some point later after they've finished up this things here on it so any other things are talking about it with respect to that bill no so the I think the takeaway here is that the as a pay there's a potential disagreement over over the amount of money to be appropriated and or the House additions can fit within the budgeted amount and then there otherwise there are questions on the Senate side about whether it makes sense to make the House changes to wage base and tax schedules and whether there may be a different way to address the penalty weeks issue or whether that should be addressed now or held off on until next session and yet like I said it seems like they're leaning towards the opposite conclusion on the taxes and wage base from the House I don't have a clear sense on the penalty weeks issue of where the committee seems to be going. Okay, any questions for Damien there. Yeah, if I may so the till amendment the objection to that was only about the money it wasn't about the positions. The discussion in the committee was centered primarily on the money issue. And so I think my impression of the committee discussion was that the main concern was do the House changes fit within the appropriation that's already out there or are we going to have to find additional money and if we do have to find additional money should we just be rolling this into the big bill so it can be part of that negotiation there wasn't there were questions but not really any sort of deep discussion about the positions that the House had added. You know so there were questions about well you know what was added why did why did the House add for example the private wastewater treatment facilities why were the the resident physicians and dentists added and there was just like this committee there was discussion over the hours they work and the wages they receive and how that's reflected but there wasn't really a clear sense of you know these people should be in these people should be out or any real discussion about that at least not not that I was privy to. So thank you. Yeah thank you Damian when you talk about the UI issue we came down and trying to keep keep it from schedule one to schedule three so it was to not have a huge shock to the system and we talked about keeping it at 16 one instead of going to 14 one so that we could still maintain that wage base even though we could lower it. It sounds like they did the exact opposite they wanted to keep it at 14 one and then go to schedule five is that what I understand. Yeah so the Senate seems to be leaning or the Senate Committee on Economic Development seems to be leaning in favor of going to 14 one because that will provide first quarter relief to employers increasing the amount of UI taxes due during the first quarter because that wage base is lower or at least if you don't decreasing the amount of UI taxes due in the really the first two quarters employee but basically having that initial head and then making a determination on tax rates later. When they have more information one of the other things that committee discussed was whether if we're going to be decreasing or temporarily lowering tax rates versus what they would be by holding this to schedule three rather than letting it go to schedule five should there be a concurrent boost in benefits for employees. And obviously that has potentially significant fiscal implications for the fund. So again that was something that they discussed but there was also discussion about how by January we're going to have a lot more information about how quickly the economy is rebounding whether we've had a second spike in coronavirus. Et cetera and where where the fund is at. So there seems to be let the wage base go down and then wait and see on tax rate and any and any other potential changes. OK, one of the things that I remember from 2009 and 10 with the great bargain is that we went into the red and part of what we had to do. I mean we have indexed the benefits to employees for years, years and years and years before that. And one of the things that stopped the indexing was that we went from the black into the red and we owed money to the federal government and my understanding and I know maybe Mike can help with this. My understanding was through most of 2010 if not into 2009 because we couldn't index it you know because you can't do that when you're in the when you owe the federal government money. We had to get back into the black again before we could index the benefit. So we're still in the black. We have what are they 200 million or something. It's yeah. And the projection is maybe it go down to 90 million at the worst case. I mean that's still all in the black. Those indexing benefits would remain. It isn't until we we get into the we've used it all up and then we're we're and then we're owing money to the feds that we would have to stop that. And I don't know how we in you know we already are one of the highest states for employees as it is plus we index it you know it's so I don't know how they want to rate. I mean I kind of also have the feeling that we had my experience is that the House talks about things in more detail than the Senate committees do because we that's all we do is they're one committee and so I think maybe we understood it and understand it better than maybe they do. You know I mean if you give with give with one hand you take away with the other. I mean if you're going to raise it to schedule five you're going to still triple the rate on people and then the wage base will remain lower but that may raise you know it's six or one half dozen of the other. Keep the higher wage base make it a little lower rate. You know I don't know if they ever did any analysis financially on that or labor did but it may come out of wash yet they they did review the same analysis from Matt Barrow it's this committee saw and you're you're right with back with the grand bargain we held the maximum weekly benefit at 425 a week until it was repaid then it indexed according to the change in the state average weekly wage until we had skin at which point increased to 57% of the state average weekly wage and it's since flexing from there and it would continue indexing I think next July one it's set to rise or maybe it rose this past July one the 531 and then it yeah so it indexed this past July one I don't know where it'll index next year it may may actually stay flat because the state average weekly wage may not go up with the way the economy. So what they were talking about was possibility of potentially some sort of temporary boost or something like that. But there are some of the other things from the grand bargain like the one week waiting period that has since gone away that wasn't discussed on the other side obviously I can't comment on who spends more time deliberating information but you know so there there was discussion of the grand bargain the there were references to sort of the pain that both employers and employees felt there wasn't necessarily talk though about. The waiting period there was more talk about if we're going to give a tax break to employers for a year should give additional benefits to employees and I don't know that they settled on a conclusion for that. I think one of the things that they did sort of acknowledges there's a lot of unknowns going into next year and they're reluctant to take action without having some of those unknowns addressed. Damien did they get testimony that if they jumped to level if they jumped to the schedule five and they did they dropped that wage down to 14000 the only people are helping their major manufacturers and larger employers and the smaller mom and pop employers are going to get creamed even with with good experience ratings because when you go to level five the people who they're paying you know under 16 when they're all all of most of their employees are within that wage range for the first part of the year. So again they Matt Barowitz went over his handout with them. I'm sure that they specifically discuss the makeup of the employers and the different bands and how the lower bands tend to be smaller employers that have few layoffs. So the. Yeah I just because of the way the week has been I've been in and out of the committee. Chunks of their discussion with the Department of Labor on almost every day. So I don't know if they've gone into that specific issue. More questions for Damien. All right. Thank you Damien. You're very welcome. Anything else. Okay. Well again don't know if I think while we're here and we still have time. So we yesterday we had the discussion of you know creating a menu or waterfall of where we'd like to see additional CRF dollars go if they become available down the road. And I think the four places that we talked about was the trust fund more into UI benefits recovery grants and the voucher consumer stimulus program. So given that it looks like a uphill battle with the Senate on getting getting the schedules changed to give the employers a little little breathing room for a year. I mean I would say that the trust fund for me would be close to the top if not the top. So that that I think even even with us injecting some dollars in there it's it's still going to drive the drive the schedule up to five but it may may not have to be up there as long as we if we inject some money into it. What are people's thoughts when your hands still up so do you want to. Oh that's from before but yeah I'll say something I think that I think that the plan we came up where we went to schedule three and raise the base to sixteen one or keep it at sixteen one and we're not raising it we're keeping it there. I think that is I think that's I would prefer to stay there if we're going to have extra money put it in the UI fund you know we may we may get fortunate and we may not have the kind of decline that that some of those numbers indicated you know we may have more like one hundred and fifty million in it and and then can slowly build it back up but with the numbers that Matt Barrowitz gave us but that's what I would prefer to do. Bob others. Me too I'm with Lynn and Bob. So you're talking about putting it into the trust fund or into UI benefits trust fund trust fund okay so the go ahead. Yeah I think it may be one of the only opportunities we're going to get to put a big chunk back into the trust fund which would I think would significantly help it may take a long time to add that kind of more money back in even if we have it if we have a considerable amount of money. I agree well I mean I hope the Senate can support the work that we did first of all because I think we came up with a good plan it was a good compromise and but if if they're not going to do that then yeah I would support going to the trust fund with secondary amounts going to UI benefits if we have that pecking order I would do trust fund first and UI benefits second so that we can share the benefits of that additional funding with the workers in addition to the businesses. Well in a way it benefits workers too if we if we fill the trust fund because if it goes the trust fund goes belly up we're looking at having to do some other other things to the to the system which would probably be you know putting a hold on the maximum weekly benefit indexing again maybe instilling installing a one week waiting period for a certain amount of time get that to get it out of the red and so I think putting money into the trust fund benefits not just the employers but the employees as well. Well what I mean how much how much money does it even you know say we get 15 million that comes back what is 15 million going to do. Well if we're not in if we're going to if we're if the schedule is going to go to 5 so that's if I remember right every two steps is 35 million or somewhere in that area so that's that means a 70 million dollar less about 12 million because the maximum weekly benefit I mean the the taxable wage base going down 2000 would drop it to drop it 12,000 so you're around 58 million so if we were able to get another 15 million in there you're you know that that's that's putting a pretty decent amount in for a year and hopefully are you know either UI stabilizes we we get people back to work again hopefully nothing else happens but when did you have another. Yes thank you I was just going to say that one of the concerns that I have about putting it into benefits which sounds great but you know we everything you pay out in benefits if you have to you lower the fund that much and then you know we were in the red and it was a real slog to get through how you could go and we had all kinds of things that we talked about and tried to work on it was hard to get those changes but I think that yeah but if we put the if we put money in using CRF dollars helps the benefits it would not go through the trust fund so that would be an additional kind of like what that 17 million is now that's being proposed by the Senate it would not go through the trust fund so it doesn't it won't deplete yeah it's over and you know it's over and above that's that's an issue is that you don't want to go and spend down the trust fund any more than you have to right because we are still in the black and we still have money there we have we have some wiggle room to work with and if you can add it to some kind of mechanism through the taxable wage base or through the schedule it would be better be better if it weren't three times the rate but and the other thing is is that you know the people who still are hurting you know those CRF award funds that we've been giving out to the businesses you know I don't know I mean they're slowly starting up and they've been expanded and we've done pretty well with this but you know these these wedding people these lodgings these restaurants these breweries all of these people are still you know they've gotten I mean I I hope they've gotten a lot of money out there but I that would be my next place to put the money whatever we have into into the recovery grants yes yes Charlie I would agree with you I trust fund I don't know if we didn't make it available to ACCD until mid-November that they would have time to get money out to those businesses and have them spend it by the end of the year that's my only concern with that and then if we could I love the idea of putting in hands of consumers to spend it businesses have been affected and I have them do that although I'm not sure nift works really great that way but I don't know so this the four are still there I just don't know what's possible by the end of the year we got to do it with that in mind I think sure Bob I think we need to recognize that there are a lot of businesses that are in financial trouble and they will probably be several of them that will be in financial trouble six eight nine months from now and to hit them with a triple increase in their taxes there's going to be a cost to employees either some that that may be enough along with other things to put somebody out of business but even if it doesn't what with these business under stress there's going to be no wage increases it'll probably be some people laid off so there's going to be a cost to employees if we go to schedule christy thanks mr chair ditto all the previous comments I'm just perplexed that here we are in the past two grand allocations and the one that's coming up hopefully soon we're giving money to businesses because of their the stress and the economic injury that they've been subjected to with covid and now we're going to turn around and try to rip it back through the unemployment trust fund repayment and that to me just doesn't make sense or the dol wasn't in favor of that that we went with their program i thought we considered it and it was a great program and I'm just that just does not make sense or I think we're going to look here we aren't trying to help businesses and then we're going to turn around next year and we're going to just try to rip all this money back from them soon and it just doesn't make sense to me I think we're going to get a black eye out of it okay so we I think we definitely know the number one would be the trust fund I've heard some people say the ui benefits would be two others have said recovery grants number two I think probably the rest of them going down down the line is going to depend on like Charlie said whether we're at what point these dollars become available and then who can wind up getting them out quickly that's I think that's what it's going to come down to I think I think we all could support any of those three um as areas that that we should fund um so I uh I'm good with the trust fund and if you're good with allowing me to listen to what's going on out there after we're finished here and and get the information of who can get the money out quickly and um who's going to struggle getting it out if you're comfortable with me doing that um I don't know that we need to rate the next three will you tell me Christy sorry my hand's left over okay Zach my my only thought was um you know I feel like so much depends on what the Senate does because if if the Senate doesn't give the seven or if we don't we or whatever comes out of conference if we don't get the 17 million for the supplemental UI benefits that that would be my number one preference of where that money goes to and my understanding is that if if we don't give that if we do give it it comes at the expense of the business grants the recovery grants and if we don't then that money goes back to the recovery grants so um if if we lose money from the recovery grants then that would then I would want to put additional funds back towards the recovery grants to to get that level that we wanted to as a second tier level I feel like it's kind of hard to there's just too many balls in the area really and then you and then you just mentioned too that's really valuable is how can we get this money out there I mean what's the what's the platform that's actually gonna get out there in the time and because we could we could optimistically want to put it towards you know nift or something like that but they we can't get it out you know so it's a lot of stuff in the air yeah and it's and you know that's information we don't have now and and it's information we won't have until you know November time when things do become available we do know that putting money into the trust fund is pretty quick pretty easy to do and that we can do that so and if the committee is good with that Stephanie yeah I was just going to say that I think my my biggest concern is getting the money out there but even after some of those conversations we had yesterday you know that the business grants having to spend their money by the end of the year makes it a really tough tough thing so we're going to give more grants to businesses in December and they having difficulty spending that it's troublesome so I think if you can figure out who can is prepared to get the money out there so that it can be spent in the under those federal guidelines that's what we're going to have to do yeah yeah Bob well didn't we get testimony that they thought that be oversubscribed and that you know they may I think the example they gave was that maybe everybody get 85% so and that's all based on that I've had this loss I'm a business that had this loss I've lost $10,000 you're going to give me $8,500 and all of a sudden if they get more money I think I'd be pretty quick to put that $1,500 back out yeah yeah I think it's but it's all going to be having conversations with the ACCD and others and to see how fast they could get money out in Department of Labor so if everyone's comfortable with this scenario of trust fund number one and then play it by ear on the rest of them to see what the information the data that comes back if when and if money becomes available and we're asked to weigh in and if you're comfortable with that and it's where the way we'll go everybody good oh yeah okay all right anything else okay well I don't think there's anything unless 353 happens to come back to us we will I don't think we will be meeting again unless something pops up like 352 so uh good luck to everybody that has races and uh looking forward to seeing everybody back in January I'm hoping that that most of you I know Gene won't be with us and Zach but I hope the rest of you will be with the committee again I'm hoping I'll be back with the committee again because that's always everything is up to the speaker so um we will see but I look forward to seeing everybody back in January if not before and thank you for all your work during this biennium and Linda don't forget Linda and Linda well of course Linda's Linda is she's leaving us too we won't we won't see her again next year either not at least on zoom hoping that the three of you that that won't be back I hope you you don't make strangers of yourself I hope oh no if we're at the state house I hope you always come and you come and visit because the door's always open for you and we'd be glad to to see you and talk with you and get some of your your wisdom also and Mike thank you yes thank you good later great later we're a wonderful committee to suspend and we're a wonderful fair I mean really I've served in all of the commerce committees I've ever worked on just this is the best and the two new members will about hopefully the two new members and the new appropriator hopefully will be as good because it's a great committee and you do really brilliant work and Tom it's your great addition yeah I'm very happy with everyone I think speaker did a great job of putting this putting this committee together and I trust that she's back again like the rest of us that she'll once again put another committee together that functions as well as this one did so thank you my track record hasn't been very good I'm sort of what you call an utility guy oh we need somebody over there oh thank you to say Bob I've been on I think one more than you actually well maybe I if I get reelected maybe I can die I have not but yeah real asset there Bob yeah no I already had one go around together moved on so yeah well everyone's been a great asset to the commerce team I thank you for it and Damian thank you for all your hard work really appreciate everything from our Ledge Council from you and from David Hall we don't see Maria very much anymore but even Maria Royal helps us from time to time and of course our excellent committee assistant Amy Amy's good thank you Amy really good yeah shepherding us through this pandemic has been great yes very good wouldn't be any better hey you guys I I just want to say thanks to all of you and I hope that I'm lucky enough to return and as I've said before to you folks and other legislators and I said it at our picnic you know every every every day serving in the legislature and our committee has been like Christmas morning and I didn't want to say it because I thought it would sound like treacle but the Chris and the presents under the tree have been all of you I've learned so much from each and every one of you every day thank you Jim thanks Jim just think I'll follow you people that have just completed your second year now you're you won't be recognized as freshman anymore except well I think Christie you'll you'll probably fall into that bucket too I just I really appreciate being on the committee and Mike you've been a great teacher thank you yeah Mike it's been good I really and I appreciate all the assistance that everyone on the committee has given me when I've asked my somewhat silly questions but it's been a great experience thanks well the good thing is we don't doesn't seem like we recognize political parties too much isn't that great yeah recognize the needs of of all Vermonters and and we try to do our best to to meet those needs as much as we can so thank you for all your work Mike I wanted to tell you I've heard from a number of other committee members that how much they respect you and and that they think you're the best chair and you know I echoed that but it's not just our committee you have a reputation outside of this committee that that you're you're a sound policy maker and a good leader makes me makes me proud to be on here and feel like I'm learning from the right guy and he voted for the cannabis bill yay Mike I couldn't let you down G I know thank you okay everyone Amy I think we can go