 All right. Good morning. This is Senate Health and Welfare Committee meeting and it is May 13th, a little after nine in the morning. This morning we are looking at h171 as it came as coming back from the house it's on the notice calendar. Today, and it's come back from the house with a further proposal of amendment. And as we've been as the bills been looked at in both the House and the Senate, some federal guidelines have emerged that suggests we need to have a further proposal of amendment to the further proposal of amendment. So, Katie and Stephanie are here and Stephanie I know that you have conference committee duties. So I'm going to ask you to please go first. Do we want to put that proposal. Let's just have you go first and then we can talk about what's. So, yesterday we learned that guidance came out on the ARPA stabilization and childcare stabilization grants that make it difficult we had when we passed the budget we were funding the, the workforce pieces that tuition and the loan repayment and the $100,000 for the scholarship program out of those stabilization ARPA stabilization grants, and the guidance that's come out. Well those grants are meant to support childcare providers, the way the money has to flow 90% of it through the centers through the childcare providers directly makes it hard to do the, the workforce money out of that pot of money. And so what the amendment you're going to see from Katie does. In the budget we're switching the $2.6 million over to the childcare development block grant. We don't have ARPA guidance on that piece yet, but we know that the normal child childcare development block grant is something that can be used for the, for the workforce and so the amendment to age 171 that Katie's going to walk through with you would make that switch over to the childcare development block grant and what that amendment speaks to is in case we get guidance that says we can't use the ARPA childcare development block grant then we'll use sort of the other childcare in the normal childcare development block grant or switch it out to general fund either what we're trying to do is make sure that the workforce pieces get covered no matter what. So that's the, that's the goal. And so, and that's, it's making clarity around that with replacing one subsection of what's coming back to you. And so, right. Counter amendment that's going to happen in the budget with the money switch. Good. Okay. So it will will be synchronous with whatever happens in the budget. If anyone has any questions about that. At the moment, or do you, I was going to just sort of step away and go back to committee conference because we're talking about that counterpart piece over there. I think we'll be fine. Any questions clear of clarification. Good. Yeah, no, I think we'll be fine. And thank you so much, Stephanie for including us in and bringing your information to us. All right, have fun. Bye bye. Okay. All right. Katie, welcome. Thank you. So I'm glad I got your message yesterday, and we're able to move forward on this. I, you know, we have the whole proposal of amendment from the house that we looked at a little bit. Let's look at that. First, and then we'll pull up the, the one section that Stephanie was talking about. Does that make sense. I think so. I was going to suggest the same thing so you could good see what we're switching out before we look at the actual language. Yeah, good. That's good. I'm glad we're on the same page with that. Good. So Katie McLean office of legislative council. Let me share my screen. So I think you're seeing the house proposal to the Senate proposal of amendment. Okay. So if you remember when we went through this, I can't even remember if it was this week or last or late last week at this point. Wow. But we had two instances of amendment the first instance of amendment was striking out all of section 10 and putting a new section 10. In the version that the Senate sent to the house that language had to do with just the childcare development block grant and asked for a report back as to how those monies were to be spent, or were spent. So I'll send back to you as a new section 10 that deals with both the block grant piece of ARPA and the stabilization grant piece of ARPA. And instead of having a work group as the house's original language this just asks the department to work with stakeholders to come up with a plan for spending these two part pots of ARPA money, and then there's language and some of the money is already allocated from the childcare stabilization grants. And then in coming up with this plan, there are specific considerations that have to be taken into account. And that's this list that we went through the last time you looked at this language. And I don't know if you want me to go through the list again. This list was in part in the original house version. And what's added here the version that the Senate sent back head language about head start. So that's been added to this list. Next we're looking at today is subsection be. So there are no currently no proposed changes to the subsection a up above, but a subsection be was language that if ARPA funds are not available for the workforce programs in the bill plan that DCF is to come up with is to include an offset of state funds to cover the childcare workforce. So we'll come back to this because this is the section that's where we're having a proposed change. And then the second instance of amendment that's coming back from the house is a change in the effective date section. So we have a new title a new heading for section 10. And so that is reflected here and we've also removed reference to section 11 taking effect because it was deleted from the bill. So that is the change happening in the effective data section. And the new proposed amendment or that will stay as this will not change in the new amendment that we're going to look at. Okay, just want to clarify that. Yeah. All right, so we're only looking at section 10 subsection be and the new amendment. All right. If it's okay I'll switch documents. Committee okay speak up if you need to look at that. Okay. Okay, let me pull up the next document. Okay. So here we have a proposal to concur with the houses proposal to agree with further amendment with further amendment from the Senate and the leading language is just that we're looking at section 10. And then striking out subsection be and its entirety and putting in a new subsection be. And so there are really two parts to changes here. So, the previous language said if ARPA funds received by the state under the ARPA funds received by the state through ARPA. So it doesn't specify which fund. So it was thought that now that we know that the stabilization grants are not available to have more specificity that what we're really looking at is to use the block grant funds for this purpose. So if the block grant funds received through ARPA are not available to implement the workforce programs. In the act, then the plan that DCF is to come up with pursuant to subsection a that hasn't changed in this proposal is to include a proposal for consideration as part of the budget adjustment process to utilize either state funds or alternative federal funds to cover the programs. So the changes that are kind of happening in the second half. First, instead of just the plan coming up with an alternative for for different funding in the in the instance that ARPA funds can't be used. And saying that the plan is to conclude include a proposal for consideration during budget adjustment so that's different. It's not proposing to make the change it's kind of kicking it back to the General Assembly and the budget adjustment process to determine if if that plan is appropriate. And the previous language looked to only replacing potential ARPA funds with state funds but this language also says that this could consider alternative federal funds to fund this program. So three changes, first being specific instead of just referring to ARPA funds and this lead in language referring to block grant funds because we know stabilization funds are unlikely for this purpose at this point. And then having the plan include a budget adjustment recommendation and that recommendation could utilize either state funds or alternative federal funds. Madam chair. Go ahead. So thank you, Katie, this. Just want to make sure I understand this is specific to the training and scholarship funding that's in in each 171. Yeah, so it refers specifically to to three vsa chapter 35 chapter five so that's created in each 171. And that's the three programs the perspective scholarships current scholarships for current providers and then the repayment program. So it's this, if this were to have is to happen, and we're not allowed to use the ARPA block grant money, and we have to come back and DCF has to come back with the during the budget adjustment that would delay the, the ability to do these programs right what already what were they supposed to when were they supposed to start. I believe July one but you know let me, I had to pull up the underlining bill to confirm that I think it was. Yeah, I mean I understand why we have to do this kind of like financial gymnastics in order to make sure we're doing the funds appropriately and that takes time and everything is just unfortunate that we're not going to be able to use the funds right away. Well, it kind of depends on when the block grant guidelines come out. I mean if the block grant guidelines come out and they haven't changed then this can go forward. Do we know, well I should have asked Stephanie that question when the, when those guidelines might be forthcoming. I don't think we know, I don't think we can predict exactly but I do want to, I'm going to email Stephanie right now. I'm just wondering about in the instance that the block grant funds are not available. Does that just mean that the program is on pause until we have a budget adjustment process so let me email her while you are discussing. Because that would be I mean by the time we get a budget adjustment past it's usually February. So that's a pretty significant chunk of time that to wait to figure this out. Like I said I get it. We're in this weird complicated money switching worlds right now but it also, you know, it's tough. Yeah, I know it's the it's what has to happen to support childcare. You're right. Right and I think you know there probably are providers who've already planned to do this, you know, to get extra education over the summer or in the fall and that sort of puts them in a lurch. That's going to make the loan repayment program a big. Oh, I was just wondering what the alternative is. I mean if we don't do this, then we don't have that fall back. Yeah, we need to do it. It's like step one, we can't use ARPA stabilization. Step two, let's go for block grant and hope that it doesn't change from its current acceptable uses and then step three, which is the least favored of budget adjustment. And then there's also the creativity of our appropriations committee, which would also be helpful. So the committee I guess the question is while Katie is reaching out to Stephanie to answer that question. I don't think the answer to the question is going to change the fact that we need to move a further proposal of amendment. So any other questions about, bless you, any other questions about what's going on with this proposal. I guess, Madam Chair, the RR counterparts in the house they know this is happening and curve. This is back and forth a bunch of times and there's an alternative on this one. So in terms of appropriations, we work very hard to have the first proposal amendment. Work together with both House and Senate and this one is really a budgetary issue and with the guidelines coming out I don't think there's any other alternative. If they send anything else further the bill will be in jeopardy. Yeah. I think we think when we, when we do this on the floor, can we make sure we do a message it right away to the house so they get it. Yeah, I that that would be my intent and that would happen. I don't know if you were on when we were talking about process, but it's on the calendar today for notice. Tomorrow, we would, I will present the proposal of amendment further proposal amendment, and then we'll, we'll ask to have the message to the house forthwith as right after that proposal so we can make it make it happen. Yeah, that would be great. Yeah. Thanks. And if I don't do it, you remind me that I was going to. Yeah, I will. I know you will. Let's do it. Okay. Katie anything there. I've emailed and I haven't heard I can turn my video off and try to give her a call. Well, I mean, the answer to the question doesn't change the need for the proposal of amendments, but it would be nice to have it before we finish our meeting today. I would ask the committee if there are no further concerns or questions about the further proposal amendment that we have a motion. I move that we further amend H 171, the House proposal of amendment as I'm confused as to how many amendments there are. The house, the house has sent a further proposal amendment and we're sending a further proposal amendment to the house further proposal of amendment. Okay. That that's what I was going to say, I moved that. I just like it. Okay. Oh God, she's getting email. All right. Discussion committee. Yes, Katie. I don't want to interrupt anyone. So I did just get an email back from Stephanie and I think she's meeting with another committee so I didn't get an explanation but I asked if if we were not able to use the stabilization, not the stabilization the block grant money. If that would mean that the, the program is tied up until after budget adjustment, and she just said a one word answer no. And so I asked for more information but I, I don't know that we're going to get it if she's in a conference committee. And then I asked her another question that I flagged as I was walking through, and she confirmed that we will need a change. So I'm going to pull up the document to show you where that is. Okay, so it's not what we're voting on right now needs to be changed before we got it. I'm glad we got amendment to the further proposal amendment to the further proposal amendment. Fortunately, yeah, I'm glad we got that before we decide we're going to vote. I'm glad we caught it though. So this, this is the house. This is the house proposal amendment to the Senate proposal amendment so this is what the house sent over. And I, when I just walked through it with you I said subsection a is not changing. I just walked through it with you I noticed that we have this carve out language that says DCF is coming up with a plan for how to spend these two pots of money, except we've already allocated money from the stabilization grants for the workforce program so that isn't going to be part of the plan. The idea is that we can't use the stabilization money for the workforce programs. So instead we're hoping to use the child development block grant for this purpose. So this would just be a switch out that would, instead of using referring to the childcare stabilization grants we would refer to the childcare development block grant. So we would be modifying both a and B, we would not see. Okay, so the, the, what's changed is it would be allocated from the child development block grants in fiscal year 2022 so it's just the, the source of funding. Yeah, so let me. You want to make that change in your amendment right now. All right, we'll wait. And so committee just as a heads up while Katie's doing that we are planning on trying to meet on Monday. So we'll, we'll try we'll have a process conversation about that or we'll work with Nellie to find an appropriate time for all of us. And Senator Hooker and Terenzini. It was really delicious. Wait, what, what did I miss. In my education I, I had time between the floor and education to make a rhubarb crisp. And we had that for dinner period with vanilla yogurt on it. My daughter made the other day to and we at first we had it for dessert with ice cream and then the next morning we had it for breakfast with yogurt. Oh, good. And that's the, the, the early rhubarb is so perfect. You know, holds its shape and form it doesn't just sort of disappear. Great. And now, now I have to make rhubarb relish. I don't know if any of you know what that is you make rhubarb relish. I make rhubarb chutney. Yeah, same kind of thing. Yeah. Yeah, we should post those recipes. This is a recipe that one of my husband's patients gave him and it's fresh. She gave him a whole booklet of rhubarb recipes from Vermont tradition, traditional rhubarb recipes. They're amazing. They really are. says Katie says she's ready. Good thing. Thanks. All right, Katie. Okay, I'll pull it back up. Okay. Well, this is the Senate concurrence with further amendment. And I've changed the lead in language so now we're striking out section 10. In its entirety and inserting a new section 10. So we're just cutting and pasting the section 10 that the house sent over with the change in subsection a being when we talk about money that's kind of been dedicated for this workforce and programming we're referring to the child care block grant versus the stabilization grants, and then we still have the same language and be that we looked at before that has not changed. Okay. All right. Who made that amendment. Senator Hardy do you wish to change your amendment to correspond with draft 1.1. I absolutely do. Let's have the amendment to the amendment to the amendment to the amendment. I think that's the right a number of amendments. We'll find out. I so moved that. Okay, terrific. All right, discussion. Any further discussion. All right. Senator Transini, go ahead. Why don't we take a vote on this one. Yeah. So the House proposal amendment for each 171. Terrence any. Yes. Senator Hardy. Yes. Senator Hooker. Yes. Senator Cummings. Yes. Senator lions. Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I'll go to 5, 0, 0. All right. So Katie, you'll get a clean copy to me and. I think the committee probably wants to see it. We can. Nellie can distribute it if unless you want to. And. And then I'll send it up to. Secretary Bloomer. I'll send it up to you. I'll send it up to you along with H. 171 as it has been returned. From the house. And we should be fine. Now the question is. Katie. It's a proposal of amendment that has to. How is this worded? Oh, this is a committee proposal of amendment. No, this falls under your name because I believe you don't have it. Okay. So I could add additional names if you want the whole committee to appear on it or. I'd like that, but I don't know what the committee. Okay. Everybody want to be on this. Josh, shake your head. Okay, good. Okay. Okay. I'll make that change. Terrific. That'll be great. Then. I think. That is it for now. Nellie. I'd like to go off YouTube. Okay.