 You may be getting out very early today when we ran into the snag with the insurance bill. I cancelled the cigarette testimony because I didn't want a lot of people tracing up here and I was not getting to them, you know, until two, three o'clock on Friday. Since then, I had a meeting with the chair of appropriations this morning trying to figure out what we do with S96. The best, it needs to come out of here ASAP because it needs to go to a probes because there's money appropriated but not raised. There is money being worked on to be raised in the other body. So what I've been asked to do is just pass it out, let appropriations deal with it, but it is going to have to be dealt with as part of that entire end game because the only new money in there is the eight million dollars from the inheritance tax and whether or not it's no, that's what the governor's funding plan is. There is no alternative funding plan in here. There is a proposal approach therefore has to find a way to fund it. So anyway, we're just being asked to pass it out. We can do what we did last year without recommendation and send it to approach because it's going to be part of the bigger money mix at the end. We're going to have to come out to even meet the governor's 48, I guess now 50 million number. We're going to have to replace the eight million dollars he's booked from the estate tax because that is also generally booked in the budget and we probably won't like what he took out in the budget. And there will be a funding, they're working on a funding source and I've asked to have some numbers calculated on some funding source I've thought of when it comes back to the funding source. I think we're all looking at the present property tax surcharge and transfer, property transfer tax. Yes, property transfer tax. That's been the only thing we've done to fund it, to raise new money. I think the house is looking at raising that, that surcharge my feeling is now that the surcharge which started out as a one or two year has been made permanent, we probably are and it hits everybody. I would like to look at what it would, you know, what kind of money would generate by maybe doing the more folding it all in just saying yeah, this is the property transfer tax and maybe tearing it. Doesn't have anything to do with water. Well it never did. Well, but those would fall. Are you guys, let me think in a historic way. We've been through these battles. The funding sources that we've had, we've always been reassured that these were temporary as we worked. To get a life that were a proper program up and running that coordinated water use and taxation, etc, etc. Right. That is, we had something out of here. Actually, we did an occupancy tax at one point in this committee to fund. Initially, we voted out an occupancy tax. So you don't want to look at the clean land, don't you? That's right. That was another form of income. I had paid occupancy taxes to build stadiums, redeveloped downtowns, you know, but we need to get it out. If it's going to survive and keep moving, it needs to go, and it needs to go to a probes. I'd like to make a motion. Regarding Senator Rockins' bill that raises additional money on the property transfer tax from these corporate transfers that have been in the loopholes, whether they will wind up getting included in this, if we don't have some language excluded, and you're assuming we may want to do that because some folks have already got that money for some other purpose. Well, we don't see Senators Rockins' bill, so I don't know what else is coming in. Oh, it's in another version. We've actually talked about it here, too. Right. That's sort of the point, right, is all of this has to fit together. It's all... Are there any questions or anything we should do with that here before it goes over there with that in mind? Well, you know, we haven't even seen it, so we'll exclude it without seeing it would be difficult. But if we vote to send it out and we vote to use that money, that will be excluded. And it will come out... Is that going to approach, too? Would you vote now, Siebel? Yeah. Okay, so, approach will get all... Yes, they will. Okay. But that one will come here first? Yes. So, yes. If I might, Madam Chair, and given that I don't... There are multiple people who sit on natural resources or have sat on natural resources in the past, and are probably more up to speed on what has happened prior to this. I just need a little bit more explanation of why we're at this point of passing a bill that has no funding. I don't understand. So, if... Natural resources, in my understanding, could not reach agreement on how to pay for this. Do they have agreement on how much money was needed? Yeah, and I would say, I think we just felt in the end, Senator McDonough, if I'm wrong, this was really a finance decision around money, how we would raise it. But as I'm understanding from the chair right now, that we have a couple different ways to do this, that House Ways and Means is working on some funding options. So, this definitely is the end of the story. And whatever they might send us, we might add to it. Give us more time to take testimony and learn about some of the different options out there. And there's a timing issue. So, I think ideally, in an ideal world, how to send natural resources and energy, I've sent this to us... Two, three weeks ago? Okay, we would have time. Last year... If I'm misrepresenting something. Yeah, no, last year we went through the same process. We got two strike-alls sent to us, I think, two days before crossover. And we sent it out without recommendation. And a third one presented in here. And we, yeah, had like two hours to do it. And I know that Mark wants to say something, that I don't want to forget my thread of like how much... Senator Campion was correct. We didn't see a good consensus that we're going to go with the maintenance of effort number that they presented. And we didn't debate that. In the committee, we talked about per-partial fees. And whether everybody in the parcel paid the same or they were connected to how much, you know, what the permanent services. But we didn't persevere to vote on that on any of those things. And we sent it here to the committee who raises money. And if we don't raise it here, it's going to come from somewhere else. Right now, the administration has 48 million. And we've got the numbers here. The last year, we looked up last year's bill. And what it basically said was there was a study that, you know, we should look at how much we should spend, which would include, but there was no commitment. Last year, I think we spent 56 million. This year, the administration has 48 books. We have been told that the reason it came down is there were several major water, like filtration, water sewer projects that were done about Lincoln and and so that money's been spent and that good is there and therefore this year it's lower. So there's 48 million on the table. To do what we did last year plus inflation would take, I'm trying to remember his numbers, I think it was like another, it comes up to about 15, because included in that 48 is 8 million from the estate tax, which has, last year and before that, gone to the general fund. So the general fund has to cut eight million dollars. What's in the budget is 57 million, 811, 342. Yeah. Yeah, we've got that document. And but the other thing we're doing today. So we are, if you don't want, if you want to exclude the estate tax, we are approximately $14, $15 million short. We're not changing the estate tax. The governor has also changed the estate tax, which that hasn't happened either. That we will have to do and we have not done that. No, he is proposing to raise the threshold of the estate tax so it would bring in less money. So yes. This is not traditionally our role? No, it is not. Which part of our role? Pardon? What part is not our role? Chair appropriations community said we've got revenues coming in, we don't need the money. Please don't raise any money to clean up the order. Or are we just, are we going to do what the last committee did, which was to say we're not going to pass along to someone else to make this decision? Or are we going to say at this moment we're not going to make this decision? Well, in which case, then we're going to say that we wouldn't suggest to ourselves that the solutions have already been planned, unless they haven't been already planned. No, the solutions are not planned. We have been asked to keep this bill alive to get it over to appropriations. We will be receiving miscellaneous tax with some ideas in it. We will get the miscellaneous tax. My understanding is that water funding is not on there. When they send the water bill over, ways and means is working on ways to fund it. They work all day and they don't do insurance and banking. So they just traditionally have been able to do deeper digs into things like this. So we're being asked to keep it alive. Right now, the big question is the eight million that Props will have to come up with. So we need to get it to them. No, I respect that. I appreciate you coming along because I don't want it to. I don't think anyone wants to die. No, I know you do. And we have not at the time. I know there is some concern about the regional planning commissions, you know, and how well vetted that all is. I'm a little concerned that I'm not seeing any new money going to them. But I don't have time. They said they they had that when they do grants or contracts that There's there's an oh, yeah, you can put a 10% overhead cost. That's fine. But we haven't done these water grants before, right? Well, if you don't mind that, I asked Mr. O'Grady just to come up. So I don't miss speak. All right. You know, if we are not putting new money in and we are going to be doing grants to the RPCs and we aren't raising new money, then what aren't we doing? So the grant amounts will have up to 15% available to do administrative costs. Right. So the RPCs are going to be getting new money. They are, but what isn't getting old money? Well, that's your decision, because that's what part of appropriating money from the Clean Water Fund is going to be about. That's why that's what appropriations will look at. And that's the yearly, yearly deliberation that you have about how to spend from the Clean Water Fund. It's typically based on the recommendations of the Clean Water Board. And they have, with this mechanism goes into place. They will be making recommendations for the four grant programs that are in it, and then it's up to you to fund. So those are the grant programs they're talking about? Yes. Okay. The RPCs have been now based on committees, and the based on committees will make recommendations within their own basins as to who the winners and the losers are on the grants. And they will make those recommendations to the Clean Water Board, which will either approve, deny, or rearrange those local recommendations and make their recommendations in the governor's budget. Okay. That's what will take place. The concept then is that the RPCs will work with the basins. The basins. Vizory councils. Okay. This is all agreed to those of us that do insurance and banking. Okay. Sea whips. Sea whips. Sea, all right. Sea whips for being our service. They will not be able to adjust. So the idea is that they will just be almost a pass-through to get the money out based on committees that are actually doing the work. They're a pass-through, but they are expected and required to be the ones that are going to oversee the operation and management and efficacy of the projects funded through the grants. Okay. And they are limited in the amount they can use to do that. The senate natural resource thing was very clear that there was a 15% cap on administrative cost on all of those grants and through the process. So the big block grant goes to the RPC and the RPC starts making the little grants out. 15% limit is on that as well. Sea whips. Right. Not the RPC. We know what our RPCs are. Right. Sea water resources. And the regional planning commissions are separate entities from the new government created. That they may be able to make recommendations. So the key point that I brought up the other day, one of the points is the operation and management costs of those projects that are funded by the grants over time. I think you heard from the secretary of natural resources that the budget doesn't account for that. Right. And she said, well, the regulatory programs, they don't fund operation and management, which is true. Many of you have been on institutions or have been on part of this committee. You don't fund operation and management for the capital funds that go out in this water. That's crazy. And you don't do that. But those are regulatory programs. Remember, these projects are above and beyond the regulatory programs. And so will the cost be borne by the RPC in doing the operation and management over time of that project? Will it mean that less money is accounted for in the grant for the capital, the hard cost of the project? That is what is not accounted for in this. Right. S96 says that their money should be available, but this doesn't have that. This is just building the ditch, but it's not talking about who's responsible to make sure the ditch stays clear that it doesn't, yeah. Right. So that's the question for across the hall as well. Right. And there is adequate money to do a lot of this. Maybe not to do the same amount we did last year plus inflation, which is, I know, the ideal. But I think we don't even know what it would cost to fund the ongoing maintenance of management and maintenance of all, I mean, we're talking a lot, potentially a lot of small programs. One thing that I'm curious about is the money that's contemplated after we send the money out in this bill to the whatever the regional entities. What is left, like is that spending all of this money or do we have half the money in the state that wants to be able to do the other half or not understand that relationship? So remember that, that all of the money that's available for clean water doesn't all come from clean water funds. There's the transportation fees. There's the capital monies and EPA for drinking water and clean water. There's the capital monies from NRCS for IP and P's. They're not going to be affected by those. Pots are still going to be there. Maybe I should ask you this, like what, how much money is going out the door in this total? That's going to be up to you based on the recommendations of the clean water board once this gets up in the line. So this is a structure? Yes. Other questions? Is this going to be up today? Yep. This is a storm water. It has to go across the hall. The rate it's going to be, we, they will not get it until Wednesday and they have to have it out by Friday. This is an example of what happens when a storm water goes down until fast and you can't deal with it. You're right. It washes right through committees of jurisdiction and goes where it wants on control. It will go across the hall and I have, you know, I have a feeling it will end up in that final allocation mix of the budget. If they want to get rid of the governor's plan to use the state tax and they have an eight million dollar hole in the budget and theoretically we should be helping them fill that void, right? Well once they get to looking at the budget and seeing how the other body either has or has not filled that hole, I don't know now how the administration filled that hole. I know some of the cuts that have been made I'm uncomfortable with but I think they're still figuring out how the parts are moving in the budget. Once they do that, if they don't have the money, we have a miscellaneous tax bill. They will tell us if they need to raise money and we will raise it. Well somewhere as the revenue committee, if you're changing the rates for the estate tax as part of this process, that should be this jurisdiction. It should. It clearly is. Yeah, I believe that's a revenue bill so it will start in the house and now if they will ship it over to us or they may just kill it but that doesn't mean that we can't take it back up in the miscellaneous tax bill. It will be there as something they struck in that bill if that's what they decide to do. The miscellaneous tax bill is our Christmas tree and it was traditionally where this committee does most of its work at the end of the session because that's when all those moving parts start there call us and we know what we need to keep them all together. Okay, other questions about the bill from Mr. O'Grady? Thank you. All right, so committee, we can pass this out. Yes, we can pass it out without recommendation which I don't feel like I've had enough time. Yeah, well that's my motion. Okay, Sir Clark, are you ready? Okay, we have a motion from Senator Campion without recommendation. Is there any further discussion? If not, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Oh, say no. No. One, so that's six. Okay, one, two, three, four, five, two, zero. All right. Maybe as Senator Sorak has suggested, the bill should be retitled as an act relating to not establishing a court assessment. Yeah, I thought it could be possibly one day. This has probably been one of the hardest things to crack. I am not happy that we're still limping along with the present funds, but. But I feel confident maybe I'm I fear that we're going to get somewhere in between the house and conference and our further conversations. I think we have to. It's a A, the system is complicated. B, that makes the funding complicated. I think this committee has demonstrated in the past that we're willing to raise funds. I don't know at this point that we even know how much we have to raise because there's an eight million dollar at least appropriation in there that is not decided at this point or not decided without knowing the cost. Senator Campion, you want to report this? It's a real hard one. Okay. Okay. We're going to go on to another really easy fund, one, one, three, one, our insurance sandbox. I'm assuming that everything else in the insurance bill is fine except the sandbox. And yesterday we sent a message, I think about quarter five over to the Attorney General's office asking what they thought. This had come back to us with, oh yeah, I wanted to come back to us about with the fence. They said they thought they're doing rules, but lots of fences put around the sandbox. There was some concern about national letters and for national proposal that had been handed out. The insurance agents who had originally been concerned are now happy with the bill as we written. But we asked the Attorney General at five o'clock last night if they could give us any enlightenment. And Chris, you want to tell us if you can enlighten us? Absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of committee. For the record, my name is Christopher Curtis and the Chief of the Protection Division at the Office of the Attorney General. I here to share with you the eight most feared words in English language. I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Unfortunately, in this particular instance, we have not had enough time for our office to thoroughly consider this proposal that is before you. So we cannot take a position at this time on the bill. I very much appreciate you flagging it for our attention and we will certainly thoroughly review the proposed legislation and take that into account if and when you elect to make any kind of determination about it. But unfortunately, we just have not had time, the Attorney General has not had time enough to really absorb this in any terms about whether or if there are questions, concerns, or comments that might be useful to your committee. So I regret to pass that on to the committee at this point. However, we are aware of it now and we certainly follow. Sophie, if you get some real red flags that we're missing, you could we will thoroughly work the other body you fill. So so your office signed on to this letter from that's I guess led by the Attorney General around is this a federal proposal? Yes, this involves there's I think what Senator Pearson is referring to is a letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau involving no action letters with respect to I would say that I'd like to distinguish the letter that you're looking at from the legislation that's before you for a wide variety of reasons. First of all, that letter specifically dealt with goods and services under the CFPB that would have a direct impact on essentially all of the Title IX goods and services that we deal with in terms of unfair deceptive acts or practices. That is a wide ranging variety of things. The no action letters referred to in the regulatory sandbox or waiver provisions associated with that would actually go on in perpetuity. And they also would potentially one of the objections raised by the Attorney General would potentially give some third party immunity or protection from liability for potentially full industries or trade associations. So it's a very broad sweeping proposal at the federal level that the attorneys general are objecting to there and requesting that those rules not be promulgated. By contrast, I think what's before you is an insurance bill. So because that is the particular province of the Attorney's General with respect to consumer protection writ large, that was a special concern I think to the Attorney General to sign after that letter. We're very fair. It means we just handed out there was no explanation as to what they were. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Mickenburg. Yesterday, and maybe it's Mr. Gaffney, question came up. There are exclusions in this bill and the question was raised by Mr. Mickenburg as we were going out the doors. Could this be workers comp or come on up? Yeah. Is that one of I know health insurance is excluded? Yes. Kevin Gaffney, you have to be Commissioner of the FR. Workers comp is not currently contemplated in the bill as an exclusion. That being said, it doesn't seem like a likely candidate for the sandbox because there's obviously some pretty rigid state laws, mostly in Title 21. So we could consider that. I mean, that's something we just discussed, but that was one of the things we talked about. The reason we didn't exclude it was that we did think that there could be innovative products. One of the challenges with workers, there's a couple of challenges with workers comp. One, there's still an underserved market. There's a lot of exemptions that avail people to exempt themselves from the system, and they certainly have every right if they're within the law to do that. A lot of that is more cost driven than finding the benefit of the workers comp protection. Could there be a more innovative workers comp product that comes to market at a lower cost to serve some of these underserved markets? That potential is there. Could there be an innovative product that integrates payroll because workers comp is based on your payroll and the type of work you do? Could there be an integrated product that builds weekly, that maybe makes comp a more affordable product? You know, these are just the type of innovations that you just don't know what you're not availing yourself to, but that being said, we don't anticipate that being the thrust of the sandbox. I would say most of this being property casualty. Property casualty, generally. That's what workers comp is. It is property casualty, but it's obviously a regulatory regime for workers comp is both in the labor law and in the insurance law. Page 4, 19, if I get the right spot. And there's a whole lot of numbers. It excludes chapter 107, 112, 129, and 139, which I have down as health insurance, licensing requirements, consumer protection. I'm not sure what the fourth one is. Yeah, life insurance, insurance rating practices is 129, and the licensing is 131. Is there another, is an easy way to just put workers comp in there or is it so complicated that? It's not its own chapter, but it is part of the chapter. So we could identify it as whatever it is we could identify and carve it out. Which of preference is not just... I think what I testified to is that the likelihood of comp being a suitor is probably lower than other types of products, and that's only based on the experience that we've had to date, like when we engage in some of these innovative presentations there. They haven't been about workers comp. But what I thought you said is that potential because there is a need for innovative products to serve and underserved our portion of market? Exactly, and that's what I think all of the committee members have raised different questions of give us examples, and I think the example I give is certainly a plausible one. I mean, there are individuals that don't carry comp because either the law allows or there's ambiguity. And loggers. Can you remind the new members? I know it's a big problem, but loggers. Who they might be. I wonder if the witness would remind the members of the committee that they served here before on what the exemptions are being. The exemptions. Well, the exemptions in this bill? In this bill. To workers comp. To workers comp? Well, that's Title 21. That's not our title, but we certainly are familiar with it. So, I mean, Section 601-14F deals with the definition of employee and, well, F is specific to sole proprietors, and then there's a whole host of requirements that a sole proprietor could comply with. There's actually six requirements. It's independent contractors? Yes, well, independent contractors is not actually a defined term in the law. They're actually sole proprietors, I guess. Yes, yes. Correct. And, you know, they have to hold themselves out and they can't be at the direction of control. The nature of what they do has to be separate and distinct. They have, it has to be part of a written contract. I guess I didn't know a little bit about this. Yes. It is, it is. But the biggest tripping point is the written contract oftentimes. Yeah. There isn't a written contract, so they then are deemed a statutory employee. And so the hiring entity has been responsible. So, this has been one of the probably the most contentious sections of, this is the one I think we've spent the most time on, probably held them all here, economic development, is proper classification, because workers comp is expensive. And then you get into the competition and I'm very bad at it. Workers who don't realize they're not covered and aren't, and so I don't know. I don't know if, yeah, I don't know if, I mean, it's a two-edged sword. If you could come up with an innovative project that would make it more affordable, you would have less incentive to try and find ways to get under the rules. But there would be some risk involved in that. And maybe for the first go-round, because we are dealing with injured workers, we might want to think about excluding that. The disability insurance. That's part of the health. That'll be out of this. In terms of auto insurance, that's in, right? It is. So, we spent hours and hours developing policies of policy limits. What would stop the commissioner from coming along and saying, I can lower premiums and reach some people who are not getting it now by lowering the limits of coverage? Yeah, you still have to comply with the motor vehicle law. That's a motor vehicle law. That's a motor vehicle law? That's not an insurance law. That's a motor vehicle law, Title 23. Yeah, so this would not undo any mandated coverage, you know, financial responsibility in the case of auto insurance. Also, uninsured motor drivers in the case of auto insurance. All those things would have to be afforded per the motor vehicle law. I think we all know that if you just didn't insure things, or insure them at a low rate, you could be costly. I'm not saying that as the purpose of this bill. Just saying, well, you can only get $100 worth of liability on your card. The reason we put those regulations there is to make sure that people are protected. I'll give you a good example for auto insurance. The millennials, as I think I mentioned the other day, you know, they really don't purchase and own as, you know, in their 30s, traditionally as other generations have. And so are they in vehicles? Certainly they are. They're not in vehicles. They own. They're in rental cars. They're in Uber's. And there are protections maybe in the TNC world, but in being in someone else's car, a friend's car, they don't, if they don't choose to carry what's called a non-owned policy, which means they don't own a car and want to buy a liability, which is very expensive in the traditional market right now, then they go without coverage. So could a carrier come up with a non-owned auto liability product that is maybe on the go? It's when they, when they are renting a car or when they are, you know, going to have a need for a vehicle, provide protection. That limit of that policy is going to have to comply with the more vehicle law. And this would go through your standard insurance agents, right? I'm thinking of, because we went through this, if the kid at the rent a car had to be in a, you know, licensed as an insurance agent, as he says, would you like to get automobile insurance? He knows nothing about what my automobile insurance covers. And we accepted it. But on this one, it would be a standard insurance product, and you would be buying it through, well, maybe you buy it online? You buy it through any source you can buy it to them, you know, which is, you could be self-directed online, it could be a number, it could be an agent, there's a hole. And I think consumers value all those sources. I think millennials, we're just having that problem. They, they use the internet to educate themselves. But when they really want the security of making the decision, they often still want to talk to somebody. Yeah. I think it was you said yesterday that you have the ability to do some of this today and weigh certain things for products that come your way. So can you help me understand why you're not just doing that? Well, I think there's a, I think the commissioner testified to this. You know, we really think this creates a more even level of line field. It allows for more structure than that would currently exist. We have kind of an existing law that would be now there for innovators, for insurance innovators, insurance carriers to work within. A lot of times what, what the challenge is, the innovators don't come to the regulators, they just look at the law and say, I don't, I can't do that. So we don't even, we don't even get exposed to that. So I think there's an opportunity for an innovator to find out. The regulators aren't going to say yes on all these. There's more no's than yeses typically in this process. But what it does, it allows us regulators to really look at the details behind it and actually, by doing that, have better consumer protection by looking at this in greater depth and having the reporting. Remember, it's not just getting, getting issued a sandbox license, but there's actually a reporting mechanism. The carrier who was issued a license is issued a license and they just go on and do their business and they all, you know, our engagement with them is just if there's consumer, consumer issues. And there is a cash or security set aside, so that if something goes wrong, there's a protection for the consumer. And it's a two-year limit. So it's... Yeah, it's a 12 month with a, you know, where the applicant can apply for a 12 month extension. Where is your authority to do that? Well, I think there's, there are just certain... Right, just a statutory set. Of any specific, you know, statutory site, other than I can give you an example of, you know, for a traditional licensure, you're required to meet certain financial requirements. But we also have a seasoning requirement in, for company licensing. That's five years of profitability. And that is something that we, if we had, someone had four years, but we thought maybe the product was going to provide to an underserved market, we could do that, right? That's what I'm looking for. The authority to do that, I mean, if you have a law, and there's no counter bail authority, you can't do that. Where is the authority to do it? I have a feeling, and we've written some of those laws, that we have, you know, there's that phrase over at the commissioners, discretion that gets added. They're alerted. I don't have those that have the ready, but there are, there is light. We'll take a while to find them. I don't think there's one law that says the group, like the rulemaking authority is frequently set aside. So maybe that in certain instances, there's that description, but this would give it a much broader situation. And when we gave it before, we gave it in those specific situations by the General Assembly. Now without looking at it specifically, we're giving broad authority across all of these laws. We struggle to pass. I don't know that we're giving it that broad authority. You can't change license, you can't change any consumer protections. There's still, and there's all kinds of time limits. I don't see it as wide open. Yes, we're giving them permission in this, and I keep getting the image of the TV commercial. I think it's Capital One. You know, this was your old bank with the white Gothic killers and the tellers and we're creating the new bank and they clear all this stuff out. And you can now do all your banking online. That's the millennials. My husband still goes down and personally pays bills. My son is outraged if he can't pay a bill online and has to put a stamp on it. There's just a whole new way. I'm still getting used to people getting mortgages online. I would never think of making that kind of a huge investment with somebody I have never met, never seen, and frequently there's seven or eight somebody's involved. But we don't know what's out there. I just want to, if you don't mind just, what the potential outcome of this is after the sandbox period is won. At the end, we find out that the applicant isn't going to continue their product in the market. That's one. Two, now they are able to actually graduate and actually get a traditional company license or we identify something that requires a law change and then we come to the legislature and then we decide, okay, this seems like a product that is actually serving a market that hadn't been previously served. The law, our current regime, doesn't allow for it. Then we decide whether we want to launch it. Then we have the ability as a legislature to weigh in on your recommendation and whether you agree with that or not and change the law. This, as I understand it, will be the only law of this type in the country. Is that correct? As far as you're concerned. For insurance, I think it's very simple. So that gives us, again, a competitive advantage to begin with. Now, one of the things that we talked about yesterday is the possibility of monetizing in some way the participation of someone in it in the development of a product that ultimately can become nationwide, much like a provider of patent assistance might have to somebody in the intellectual development business. And I asked the commissioner yesterday to perhaps come to us today with some language that either creates a study or some mechanism for that to do it. I'm wondering if you can give me that kind of language. We do. This is Jill Rickard, director of policy with the board. And we did come up with some language which I've sent over to Maria to do a study of monetization. I'm sorry. I'm not a director of the board. The language that we discussed was the Department of Financial Regulation shall study the feasibility of requiring a person who offers a product or service in Vermont pursuant to an innovation waiver agree to pay the state a small fee or royalty based on the subsequent success of successful licensing and or sale of such product or service in one or more other states. Something to that extent is what you had in mind. We'd be happy to look into that study. I'm a big fan of raising money, but I got to say my first reaction to that was let's give a percentage to policemen for issue of tickets. Well, there's a balance in terms of how you structure something like this so that you don't have a regulator in a conflict of interest position of doing something regarding monetization. So the actual wording of this I would ask the Legislative Council perhaps to look at just with that background in mind as to how we word something like this so that we at least anticipate that issue. But if we're taking a risk to do it the other way and doing the oversight like it's worth thinking about. I'm not against innovation you know this is a creative thinking but I'm really concerned about the unintended consequences and just getting in the wrong hands and I'm also concerned quite frankly that once this bill passes even though it's sunset it's very likely to continue and we'll get less scrutiny I think in a couple of years and I look at these all these statutes and all these voltage of regulations that we're scrutinizing very carefully I don't know what's in them but it seems like in the wrong hands they can be waived even with the fences we put up around us and we'll take the risk. I wouldn't take the risk nationally I think the Commissioner said he wouldn't take the risk nationally. To me this the one thing Vermont can do because of our small size and because everybody is somebody's cousin is there's no arms length here and my thought is if something starts to go seriously wrong and I doubt you're going to have something come in sell 10,000 policies in this state I'm not sure AAA sells 10,000 policies in this state that we will know very quickly if strange things are happening down in the city center and we can put a stop to it you can have the governor do an order we can have a special session we'll be back in session and usually just a warning I mean to me it's a balancing but I have no reason after an awful lot of years not to trust the Department of Financial Regulation to regulate that's what they've done that's why captives like us because we regulate and based on what I'm seeing here I'm comfortable that as we balance the risk-reward ratio or the fault from between the two that this is a prudent risk because we have a Department of Regulatory Agency that's capable of managing the risk and the risk is not of sufficient magnitude that gives me great concern when they're done is it possible for us to have John Hall to come back up since he was the one that gave us the original list of all the yeah I'm ready because I just feel like we got this list from him and then he testified yesterday and he said that if I don't have a word to this mountain that I'd love to give that back on the record that felt like that what we've done in this list that we've got all the matters from all these attorneys general that they are not I just want to remind people of that that it's not that we're ignoring this we're going back to the source who had brought this to our attention we can disagree but I would like to that's fine he's not the source of the state laws no no no he's the one that I think this is a risk of state insurance this was yeah when it's you know okay are we finished John you want to come on have to talk to us you seem to in defense of your clients spread a lot of fear in this committee and would you like to see if you could settle down some of that fear so I appreciate it John Hall I'm John Hall here and we have people on insurance agents association so you know I was that my client raised concern at a pretty high level about this bill and as a result of that I raised concerns with others and with and presented the committee with that list which I thought was relevant if you're going to consider this broad scope I thought that it would be relevant for you to see the actual list of but that is a list of all the insurance regulations and both of those that would be subject to waiver that's all the same that's what it was and so that was what it was and what that doesn't include anything that the bill would include at this point it does I think we I carved out from that the I didn't include on that list the statutes and the that instructions that would be subject to it wouldn't be subject to waiver subsequent to that my client had some very productive conversations with the staff and I think the commissioner at the department and as a result of I testified the other day or maybe just they narrowed significantly the scope of the authority both in terms of what can be waived and how long and I from that reached a level of comfort that it's not open-ended and I think that time well I think probably in both senses both the definition of what can be waived and the standards but also the duration so that it's one year and I think it could be extended a year ahead of significant impact on their ability to be comfortable with it so as a result they are comfortable with what's before you so I hope that's helpful and you represent I'm a G.J. concerned insurance agents yes have you read all these? no no I that's no exactly it's not right Michael's working at it what I was telling you was that a sense of what is subject to waiver and it is a lot but and so that's what triggered their I think alarm at the outset because what they didn't have is to overwork the phrase that an adequate of fences around the sandbox and I think after those discussions they felt like there really was adequate yeah I mean I'm looking at things like repealed 1971 number 185 adjourned session number 237 effective March 29th 1972 I don't I mean that's just the list of computers it was I don't know what you're waving in there well I didn't mean to suggest that those were seriously going to be considered waiver what I wanted to give you was a list of all of the statutes insurance statutes that would be subject to waiver yeah something tells me we're going to get many many many organizations but they're all here they're all subject to waiver and that was really the only way of that so John and I have done a lot of battle over the years over workers column do you have any problems with exempting workers column from this law my clients wouldn't have a problem exempting that from that no you mean in terms of not allowing the department to have a waiver or something no you can work with that workers column cover yourself no I'll give it up no no I'm going to I think it was a shafted point at most of the underlying statutes that govern the workers column since tomorrow is set for title 21 not title 8 so I really I think these really deal with the insurance where I mostly focus on solvency the carriers not the actual statutes that's in my club how plays okay so when this discussion originally started it was insurance in case you lost your camera on a height insurance for perhaps being on an airplane flight that got in late enough so late enough so you missed your Caribbean cruise you missed you lose your fishing pole more on the fishing and they all all the examples were you listen to you went oh well that's an interesting insurance policy but where does this list end and I can't imagine insurance companies that work on Monter they make a living on on those sort of sort of things your TV goes sour during the your Super Bowl party insurance but I don't know so or your dip goes sour or anyway that this this is making now stuff which is selling something that could end up being kind of stuff not making a mess so where's the where's the line well I think you have to look at the scope and I think from our view the scope with the definition of what is that subject to waiver narrows it to the point where I think it would address and not mainstream policies but I think you were comfortable that it's narrow enough that that's it's not going to be broadly used um to exempt general you know sort of you know insurance classes would it make committees more comfortable if we ask the commissioner to give us an interim report of what's been requested what's been accepted what's been denied January 2020 so we will know my biggest fear is we aren't going to get anything but we will know if it's Mickey Mouse or if it's Moby Dick that's come in for a waiver you'll lose your fishing pole later yeah I mean but we we will at least get this is you know we'll at least get that will be probably six months in an idea of if there's a whole bunch of insurance companies waiting out there to rip off the Vermonters or maybe we're getting no response or maybe we're getting a very limited to your fishing pole or spraying your back marlin fishing or bungee jumping I mean who knows but would that make it better at least we know that we would authorize it at least we know what we were authorizing yep okay so this goodness knows when you buy insurance there's three pages of fine print on what you have of us what has to with our this this says can this would just be asking you to report back to us January and next year the number the title so how much confidentiality okay how much confidentiality you have but you know the number type what briefly description pardon it is in the bill for next January oh you're just meeting the timing of the report I apologize I think we would I think the committee is very concerned that we're opening the game and they're not sure if Mickey Mouse or Moby Dick's going to come through and if somebody's going to be asking to make major changes in liability insurance so you know or I think some of us are thinking maybe we're too you know maybe we won't get any takers but either way just you can do this is a verbal I don't mean to tell you maybe not me to do it but it does seem in the bill uh January 15 2020 page seven page seven okay so it's twice a year beginning okay so we're going to get a report in january yes as to the activity all right I'm sure of the timing but I thought it was no okay that's good do we have any other questions for Mr. Holland thank you for us thank you for us Mickenburg you want to say this to us anybody else want to speak how it's she David Mickenburg on behalf of a few organizations ARP Vermont and Vermont Association for Justice just so you know we've sent the bill down to ARP's insurance expert who is taking a look at it and we'll get back to you and at least perspective looking at it now uh but as you know ARP is a conservative national organization that cares deeply about protecting consumers other than 40,000 members of the line so um from the from the Vermont Association for Justice I'm glad Mr. Holler's not fearful anymore that sort of makes me fearful in some ways because oftentimes there's this yin yang on the issues we work on I just my concern one I raised with you yesterday about workers comp but also related to liability insurance when we see the practitioners that I work with seek catastrophic injuries and the uncertainty and unknown about an insurance product that may or may not cover them and how it covers them and the intricacies of it is disconcerting to us and we're in the process of analyzing this bill as well but it just certainly raises some given the amount of I don't say turmoil the amount of conflict that we have naturally built into the system as it pertains to seriously injured individuals and the civil justice system knowing that insurance products could now be innovated in that world raises some concern so okay you know when you might hear back with folks sounds like they're both you're both not by five o'clock not by five o'clock today but certainly appreciate the openness to exempting workers comp I think that's it's helpful but even beyond that I understand the point I'm not against innovation you know cell phone needs some innovative insurance coverage for cell phone lost cell phone or something like that but when it comes to catastrophic injuries of individual show my past yeah that that is an area where yeah we have some questions so well we've got a couple options we can strip out this section and send out the rest of a fairly innocuous bill we can leave this in with the safeguards we've got insurance agents that actually work on the ground floor and it's their licenses they're on the line feel comfortable if AARP or the association for justice I require capes next time you come in come off with some really severe concerns we can amend you know we can do an amendment on the floor to address those or if it's really serious we can we can strip it on the floor but I don't think we're going to be able to make any more progress this afternoon I think it's time and at this point unless we want to have Maria go grab something that strips out workers comp or we just wait and see if any of those folks that are looking at this along with the attorney general come running in here next Tuesday and say oops then we can do that all at once and not have to wait for Maria to go put in as well so if Maria could address the addition regarding monetization language so that when we come back to this we okay maybe you want to do that as a floor amendment rather than wait for her to well again is if the likelihood is that there may be some change to this anyway right this week and we're going to look at it again next week we probably ought to do it then and do an amendment then and she'll have time to just you know put it in the in the bill as it comes to us and going on okay and we'll get we'll get the amendments in the calendar on the floor if there are any yours I think we'll look at as we'll have you do it on behalf of the committee or ever makes secretary okay so committee what do you want to do I wasn't supposed to do a study but we're going to do we're going to do it I wasn't supposed to go back session was tidied up and that and down well I think they're feeling that the study is do you have to test the market and see if there's a market and they they're what I've heard that in the department saying is they won't know until they get there what if anything's out there and they've done sufficient study to establish a control environment with which they feel comfortable I would rather that he just move forward without the slight same box rigidity that we'll go back I'm looking for a way I'd like to keep it in I'd like to keep it in also so I'll I'll move that we move the bill forward with the same box provision intact something to these amendments that we're talking about and something to visit to review I'm just looking Maria have we done anything that we need to we have not made any changes to this have we no nonsense we went over the latest draft yesterday the latest draft and there have been no subsequent revisions so if we vote draft 1.1 or do we have to amend the date before that strike it and I've been seeing it dead in both ways that's we have to amend bill that's what I thought health and welfare has been just doing moving draft 1.1 okay so with your motion to strike the bill and replace it with draft 1.1 which is what was brought to us amend the bill amend the bill strike all amendment which was the the bill with the fences that was brought to us yesterday thank you is that your amendment to have a motion to amend the 20 order that is your motion okay so we are striking the bill is introduced and substituting strike all amendment draft 1.1 3.20 3.14.19 is the date on it we've been what yesterday yesterday yes