 Welcome back to the Judiciary Committee and we are looking at age 18 as it passed the Senate and we will resume our testimony with Judge Brian Greerson. Good morning, Your Honor. Good morning, Madam Chair and to the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify. My name is Brian Greerson. I'm a judge and I'm a judge by this is age 18. For the record, Brian Greerson, chief superior judge. You know, my recollection on this particular bill. Was that I don't think I testified before the how before this committee when it was before you previously I did. And primarily because it's. Bill with little or no. No impact on on the judiciary. I did testify in the Senate judiciary but essentially to the same effect I was in primarily there was a considerable discussion in the Senate judiciary and I'm sure that Marshall and David share will fill you in the discussion there centered to a great extent around whether the language should be used in this bill as child or actual child and issues relating to that phase. And it was clear that neither the statement of the defense were going to be able to agree on on a common path and because it's possible that that could come before the court. I offered no opinion on that and which is all to say that I don't have much to offer the committee on this bill. Other than I recognize it as policy decision I commend the committee, both committees for taking the initiative on the issues that are in this bill they are clearly important issues. I think it's important that the legislature has chosen to to bring this bill forward. I think it's important that the legislature has to take into account the seriousness of those issues and the attention they need. But because it is in the nature of policy and at least from the discussion and Senate judiciary that we may be hearing from the state and the defense on parts of this, I would reserve any further comment but I'm glad to try to answer any questions that committee may have. Thank you. I certainly certainly appreciate that. Thank you so much. Thank you again. Thank you again. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. Marshall, Paul, please. Good morning. Good morning. We did not support this bill in the house. We also did not support it in the Senate that was as the judge just referred to because of our objection to using a definition of simulated in the child pornography section of this bill that we don't believe reflects the case law from the federal courts that have interpreted the case law. That said, we do support this amendment to the bill. The immunity amendment as far as we see it is sort of a no brainer it is, frankly, a very limited provision, it does not actually go very far. It's definitely a step in the right direction but it's very much a small step. And I think that the limitations are really illustrated. Most when you look at the sort of very short list of offenses for which immunity may be provided. I mean, frankly, those are offenses that are largely in the state of Vermont, either not prosecuted at all. In many counties. When we're talking about the prostitution offenses, or in pretty much all counties, generally receive a referral to diversion rather than an arrest and prosecution in the case of the drug possession, possession, possession charges. So, you know, I say that just by means of illustrating that this is not any sort of a bold step this is not any sort of huge change in the law this won't be a huge change for law enforcement for the justice system as a whole. You know, so certainly don't see this as being significant of a change in terms of its substance but I think it is quite significant in terms of the message it sends and the importance of that message which is that we are as a state seeking to protect people who are engaged in sex work and allow them to access to the same resources that we all have access to in terms of being able to call the police when we're in an unsafe situation and to do so without fear that that will actually be worse than not calling the police at all. I certainly support this bill, you know the we have a very similar provision that addresses people who call for police or medical services in the event of an overdose that has been on the books for a few years. It's been problematic. There have not been, you know, there's not been problems with that we've had, I can think of one case where somebody was probably inappropriately charged with a drug possession offense. After calling in a calling for help in the case of an overdose that case was dismissed by the court once the court realized what was going on. So, and that's, that's sort of been the end of it so, you know, from our perspective, this is taking what has been a very successful immunity provision in the area of substance use and for help in calling for, you know, first responders in case of an overdose in imports it into the world of sex work and allowing sex workers to call for help when they need it and not fear prosecution for simple drug possession or misdemeanor prostitution related charges so from our perspective this is a no brainer and we very much support the amendment. Thank you. Thank you so much Marshall. I do see Ken's hand is up. Go ahead Ken. Hi Marshall. So, I think I just heard you say it is prostitution even prosecuted anymore. It is in some counties it's not another counties it's very much up to the local states attorney, just like all prosecutions are and they all have different policies and that's actually one of the important things about this I mean, I think that it's, you make creating a universal rule across the state that if somebody calls in to report a crime that if they were involved in prostitution. At the time they called in to report that crime that they won't be prosecuted for that prostitution. That to me is exactly what this bill was meant to accomplish. So, I mean from my perspective. You know what it what it solves is by creating one statewide framework. It keeps people from having to, you know, try to decide like, Oh God what county am I in and can I, you know, can I call for help in this county. What will the result be and that's, that's really an impossible calculus to make in the moment, which is why one statewide framework is so important. So, I mean I'm really going to go out on a limb here. I mean, I mean, maybe we should just make prostitution legal would that be, would that be safer for everybody. I think so and in fact last, not last year but I think it was the session, maybe it was last year. There. There was a bill to explore the legalization of sex work in Vermont and we supported that. And we continue to I mean frankly, we think that there's actually been plenty of research that's shown that legalized prostitution as far safer than criminalized prostitution. And so we've supported that in the past it's not part of this bill presently. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ken. Asking that that important question. Any, anybody else I'm not seeing any other, any other hands. Well thank you Marshall I appreciate knowing that first part of the bill you did not support, but that you do support what the Senate added in that you're able to come back with with your show of support so thank you, thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, so David share from the Attorney General's office. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair, a good morning committee for the record David share with the Attorney General's office. We do support this bill and support in particular speaking about the immunity provision that the committee has not already considered and we do think this is the approach public safety from a standpoint of what is actually going to keep people safe. And we think that this is an important measure that will help people get out of harm's way where they need to do so and to get help where they need to do so from this year of prosecution. A few, a few weeks ago our office actually really did a press release a joint press release with the Vermont State Police encouraging people to use this the Good Samaritan provision and the drug laws, because we know that there's a serious health serious crisis in the state and around the country around overdose overdose problems we've had a sharp rise in that during the pandemic and again we believe that the best way to keep people safe is whatever is going to allow them to access services that will help them be safe. So we strongly supported that provision we are encouraging people to use it and we think that this is an important step forward and important innovation to keep people safe in this context as well so we are supportive of it and we certainly hope to see it become law. Thank you, David and do you want to speak to H18 at all. Oh, yes we still, I'm sorry I've forgotten we've had a modest change there we still support the we still support it as it is. We think it was a reasonable change after some discussion and in the Senate and we're still supportive of that section of the bill as well. Okay, great. I appreciate that because because the question for us is whether or not to concur with this bill in its entirety so so thank you can go ahead. So, Madam Chair, I don't know if this is a lot but I'd like to ask David the same question I just, I just asked Marshall. Is that okay. Absolutely want to repeat it. David, David, are we are we still prosecuting prostitution in this state. I would give the same answer as Attorney Paul. It is happening and I believe it is happening in some cases it does not seem to be frequent. Can you can you give me how the state's attorney it feels about that. I mean, the Attorney General. I can say that I don't believe our office has brought such a charge in in quite some time. Do you think passing h18 and add s8 at adding s103 to that bill will make the lives of people safer. Yes. I think there's a possibility that younger people are going to get involved in this and we're going to create a bigger situation of what we have now. I think this is incentivizing behavior that's, you know, more harmful behavior if that's what you're getting at I see this as a way to allow people to get out of situations that they need help getting out of and stay safe. And you're not worried about people getting into the business because it could be viewed by some people as a somewhat easy way of making money. I don't think this bill is going to have any effect on that type of decision making. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any committee members any other questions. Okay, so I'm not seeing anything else. And we're still waiting for Michelle but before we. Before we finish I just want to give our witnesses any of our witnesses, Henry Chris Kara anybody. David, the opportunity for any final remarks. I shouldn't say final, but this right now. Yeah. I do want to reiterate my gratitude for this opportunity to be a part of this very important conversation. I think it is an incredibly important gesture on behalf of the Vermont State Government, saying that we as a statewide community want to act in the interest of protecting all demographics in our state. There's a lot of erasure on the experiences of sex workers and trafficking victims nationwide, because of the criminal nature around this issue. So pushing this policy forward. Well, I would like to echo I don't believe that it would endorse dangerous behavior on behalf of the youth, the youth of Vermont. I think instead it would be a preventative action so that folks who are in vulnerable positions don't find themselves in coercive and exploitative situations. This is, again, an incredibly important motion of harm reduction, something that we've seen globally in its effectiveness. In the interest of protecting people beyond what are our political scopes or our moral moral compasses are we do give them opportunity to make different choices and to seek help accordingly. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. David. Hi, thank you. It's been really great discussion I just wanted to add in to what everyone said I think this bill really presents an opportunity for folks that are that are being victimized or have the threat of victimization to work as partners with law enforcement to root out some of the real issues and and those that are bringing coercion and violence to these situations so that the community can develop an ongoing relationship with law enforcement that can be collaborative and positive and make sure that at the end of the day people are safe so I think this sends a signal that folks really want to partner in that in that way and that's a really positive thing and perhaps change some of the historical concerns that have existed over time because of the criminalization. So, I see this as a real great first step, small but really important first step to developing that relationship. Thank you. Thank you, David. I certainly certainly agree. The importance of regaining trust in law enforcement and collaborative collaborative policing collaborative communities. I really appreciate you saying that and what's going to, going to ask about that a little bit, just, and if other witnesses wanted to weigh in I think that would be great but no need just the ways in which this, this could actually be a tool for law enforcement as well in like I think in the example I used earlier from my police department that was that impulse of wanting to bring charges was really came from a very compassionate place of wanting to help people out of all situations. And at the time, the only tool that police really had was charging. And I'm just, yeah, it feels to me like this creates a really different kind of tool and pathway for law enforcement to potentially be able to help folks and I guess it's more of a comment than a question, but though if anybody wanted to respond to it further that would be great. Thank you. Again, certainly welcome our witnesses to, to comment if maybe you want to. But it's also fine if not. Okay, I know that Michelle is on her way and so it will be still be helpful to understand the differences, especially in 18 that the Senate added Bob go ahead I see your hand. Thank you. Not being all out familiar with with the. I was wondering if anyone of the witnesses would care to comment on any personal knowledge or experiences or, or where do you think this is happening within the state of Vermont and geographically isn't is it in the larger communities is it in the rural communities. And then along those lines, I guess would help me out. Could you repeat the question for for me you cut out at a part way through. Thanks. Am I breaking up again Maxine. Yeah. So, I'm talking about the state of Vermont, not nationwide but the state of Vermont, not being all that familiar with the victimization or people suffering from from this here. Is this something that you give me any without mentioning names or so on so forth, any instances that you're uniquely familiar with within the state and is this something is happening within our rural communities or more geographically in our larger communities. So you're asking about instances of exploitation and trafficking. Yes. So the trafficking that we're experiencing in the state of Vermont so as far as I understand it is largely agricultural piggybacked upon that. I might say for example, there are folks who are migrant laborers in the dairy farm industry. Who could be experiencing an element of sexual sexual exploitation on top of their agricultural labor, oftentimes with our migrant laborers in the state of Vermont housing is provided by these contractors. You have a particularly coercive power play type relationship where an employer has authority not only over a person's income and ability to stay in country, but over their state over their housing as well, which is again why this bill is so important in instances where people's livelihoods as a whole are being put at risk. And, and threatened in relationships of so of sexual coercion, a good Samaritan bill in place that is common knowledge with law enforcement could provide protection for people in instances where they desperately do need to be removed from a dangerous situation. And because Vermont Vermont's been really wonderful, living here, seeing how many resources we have geared towards domestic violence geared towards substance use disorder geared towards sexual assault. There is a really amazing push that says Vermont wants to lead by example, when it comes to eradicating rape culture and exploitation in the first place. And it was very much a part of that as well. And it's all it's really when we talk about exploitation. Because of the, let's see how dated our laws around prostitution are which is not a discussion we need to have right now. It's been hard for our organization in particular to some of the numbers of communities that are really affected or or more, more urban. But this next step does give us an opportunity to collect that information and see what we as a community can do going forward, what what members of the community are being overlooked, who we need to prioritize. You know, who's, who's real experiences and conversations. We're missing right now. Thank you Henry. So this goes beyond perception what you're saying is, this is is actually happening in the state. Yes, my answer. We, since we have the two programs going and in Chittenden and in Rutland, we do collect demographic information from that it's it's hard. And I think that also through the network, the Vermont network of domestic and sexual assault, folks, they, they have a program in the women's prison. And right now, that is sort of the largest grouping is is women in prison who have been trafficked and have been arrested for other things. It happens across our state and I can get you those demographics and send them to, to, to the committee. And as well as Chris said that we you know we do see this in some of our member organizations and some of it is around drug trafficking. And then we also as Henry had mentioned exploitation related to housing is something that we see a lot at one time, we had one of our member organizations say that the majority of the folks that were in their shelter at that point in time had actually been had left their housing situation because they were being exploited by a landlord. And so we know that our affordable housing crisis really exacerbates the problem. And then finally, so we do have under Vermont's fair and impartial policing policies in the state of Vermont. We do have such as that directly address this is this. Would this be a duplication of those efforts I don't know if you're familiar with the fair and impartial policing policies within the state. No, I can't answer that but maybe somebody else can. And to my understanding, we do not have, we don't have a good Samaritan law on on the books. So, right we don't have the good Samaritan law but what I'm saying is under Vermont's fair and impartial policing standards right now, a victim or a witness of a crime be domestic of nature or whatever else. If we're talking about the immigrant community. They're not subject to arrest or any of those. I've mentioned just do the fact that we've had that we have those in place right now on our fair and impartial policing policies. Well, I will let a council answer that also. Thank you, David chair of the Attorney General's office. If you could address that as well. Thank you. I don't see this as being duplicative of the fair and impartial policing policies at least certainly not the model statewide policy, which does have some language as you referenced specifically about immigrant communities but I don't see that this would. That's more a matter of how communication happens it doesn't dictate how officers decide whether to charge or not to charge if there's evidence of a of a crime. So, and it has some language around communication with other government authorities but I don't see that this is already achieved through the FIP policy, a policy that I'm less familiar with is the, there are domestic violence policies that departments have and I couldn't speak to those right now I would need to review those but I am confident in saying that this is not duplicative of our FIP policy. Thank you. Thank you, David. Great. Great. So let's turn now to Michelle Childs. Thank you. There you are. Good morning. Hi, so I know it's a little odd that I'm going at the end instead of the beginning but thanks for accommodating Senate just yours working hard on each 183 and they have set it for a vote on Friday. So, so would you like me to share the screen and put the language up for you. I'm sure. Apologize I'm probably going to say things you've already heard multiple times from witnesses this morning so or so my apologies there. I know it's it'll be helpful, especially in H 18 if you could help us understand the, the difference there, and the underlying correct right right and then and then certainly also to to go over s 103. So the question for us is whether or not to concur or so. So it is important we understand the language. So, okay, yeah. So, so, yeah. Sorry it's going to say I don't always see committee members hands when we're screen sharing so folks, please, please jump in if I don't recognize you committee members thank you. So, starting out so we're looking at each 18 as you sense it over to the Senate, focused on the sexual exploitation of children and specifically on the issue of simulated conduct which I'll put a lot of work into. And I can say they changed it very, very little. It is, because they did, they wound up doing a strike all and I'm what I'm working off of is the Senate Judiciary Amendment. It has passed the Senate but there's a process where we have to get it from the Senate secretary and then I have to approve it before it goes up and that that just hasn't made its way to me yet so that's just to let you know what I'm working off of here. So, the only change that they made to your underlying bill is that if you go down into the definition and your definition of simulation which is in seven a, and you'll see, I mean seven subdivision seven and you'll see on subdivision seven C. You had on there this was, you know, this issue that you went kind of round and round on and grapple with around whether or not to include in the definition some mention of it being an actual child or a simulated child and so the version that the house passed on the division seven C said simulation applies only to conduct not to a simulated child and they struck the last clause, saying that it, you know, not to a simulated child. And I will just say, you know, they had the same discussions that you did at length with the defender general's office and the attorney general's office around simulated child should there be a definition should the definition of child include the term the words actual actual child and through part of that, this is where they landed. I would say I don't think that that does any harm to the intent of what you had done originally, because if you look at your definition of child. And that's not changed so you have a means any person under 16 years of age, our common understanding of that throughout the statutes as we are talking about an actual child. And then when you look at the definition of simulation, it starts out saying simulation means the explicit depiction of any conduct and really seven C is just kind of belts and suspenders reiterating that it's applying just to conduct. So I don't think it changes it substantively in any way I think you added the phrasing not to a simulated child, but that that was a little concerning for them and they felt more comfortable just striking those few words. Is anybody having a questions on that one. Thank you and we did hear from the attorney general's office in support of the changes. Okay, great. So moving on to the immunity from liability and and most of you are going to be pretty familiar with it already because this is identical to the language that the house passed last year. But because of the pandemic it got kind of stuck and was not taken up by the Senate last year. So I'm going to bring in a new section to the, the prostitution chapter, just using existing definitions for human trafficking and prostitution. I'm sure the witnesses that have talked about this is modeled after what you have entitled 18 with regard to some limited immunity for possession of regulated drugs for a person who reports a suspected overdose. And so the language is is very, very similar. And so you see in subsection be at the top of page three so a person who in good faith and in a timely manner reports to law enforcement that the persons of victim of or witness to a crime that arose from the person's involvement in prostitution or human trafficking, were prosecuted or arrested or prosecuted for the following offenses and then the offenses are prostitution, prohibited conduct member prohibited conduct is is it used to be kind of a broader and then remember you bifurcated it and out the prohibited acts and prohibited conduct. And so this is relating to to that work that you did and so this is something that conduct that may be associated with prostitution that could be charged under this particular provision. And then the remaining ones are the lower level possession crimes for the various drugs. And so I just wanted to note there that even though this subsection be lead in is talking about a crime that arose from the person's involvement and prostitution or human trafficking. There is no immunity for a human trafficking charge in be it is only providing immunity around prostitution and related conduct, or the minor drug possession and does not and doesn't include dispensing or sale of drugs either so it's just possession, and it's just related to prostitution and not as though someone could get off the hook for a human trafficking charge for utilizing this law. Another thing is I just wanted to point out is that, and based on some questions that came up in Senate judiciary is that, you know, this would apply to whether it is a sex worker or a survivor of human trafficking but it would also apply to someone who might be a client. As well. And so that was something that came up. And I think you know there are certainly strong policy reasons as to why when you're looking at the harm reduction reasoning behind it doesn't necessarily if you're trying to focus on harm reduction not necessarily matters who's the one who's reporting the crime and seeking assistance from law enforcement. Subsection C is the immunity provisions apply only to the use and derivative use of evidence at gain is approximate results of the report. And so that is I think the simplest way to talk about use and derivative use is that if the some the fact that there might be some drugs at the location where law enforcement shows up so there's been a report to law enforcement law enforcement shows up there's drugs at the scene. And that that information that resulted from seeking law enforcement assistance to report the crime that can't be used in a prosecution against the person for those particular offenses. Or if you go outside of that and there's independent evidence that's not related to what was gained as evidence because that person reported the crime, then the crime then the charge can still be brought. And so, you know an example might be that. And although this doesn't deal with providing immunity for drug sales but you know if this was let's say if it was a motel and and police were called and there were drugs at the scene but yet they had been kind of having an open investigation into potential, you know, selling of drugs at a location or things like that this is not going to negate that if they have independent corroborating evidence it's just they can't use that evidence that's obtained basically as that was gained as from the report for law enforcement. And again that language is based on what there is currently in title 18. And that's the title 18 law was passed eight years ago. Top of page four subsection D. This is just saying that if you qualify for immunity and the above provisions then you're not subject to the forfeiture provisions in chapter 84. So I think as most of you know that there are, if you are engaged in crimes with regard to drugs, then you are potentially be subject to forfeiture proceedings. And this would just say that you wouldn't be subject to that if you don't, if you qualify for immunity up above. So subsection E again just standard language, same as what's in the current law, just that in cases of reckless or intentional, accepting those cases of reckless or intentional misconduct law enforcement is I mean, presiding or arresting a person who's later determined that they qualify but at the time law enforcement was not able to assess that certain and essentially made a mistake. So subsection E is this July 1, and then there's just a change to the title of the bill now that there's two different issues in there so we can kind of keep track of when bills are combined. And that's it. Thank you. Thank you so much Michelle. Any questions for Michelle regarding the language. I am not. Not seeing any. Thank you Michelle. We, I think with the exception of two current committee members. We all did work on this last time. So perhaps it is familiar to folks. Okay, so, like I said, our decision making points is whether or not to concur. Tom is, I know he had an appointment that he needed to get to so. Oh, let's wait on that discussion until I can check in with him but I'm hoping that we can get back to it back to this after the floor, and I am hoping that we can can concur. So, given that I am going to ask for for that. I think this is a great time if people do have questions about the language here about how the law would work to to ask our legislative council and Bob I see your, your camera just came on do you have any questions. One of the people here. Okay, thank you. You're gonna have to walk me through this a little bit as to I clearly supported 18 as written. And now, as it turns out, there is a bill that wasn't addressed and the house did address it last year and the year before it's been on to the bottom of this bill here. Okay, how does this work to explain this process to me, I guess, is that a question for me. Great Michelle yes. So procedurally meaning in terms of the procedure that the Senate went through in terms of putting. Yes, we approve. We got a vote or a straw vote I don't know what it was on h18. And I personally wasn't favor of that. And now we're being presented with the bill with an additional portion to the bill that has nothing to do with h18. And now we got a vote on it as a complete package. Yes. And it's extremely common that and especially in towards the end of the session for bills to be combined into one bill. You know judiciary always has a miscellaneous judiciary bill so that will oftentimes be the vehicle for multiple bills that are in various stages. But it is very common for two bills to be to be combined. And Senate judiciary, as I said, was not able to get to the topic of s 103 last year, so they, and they have. So they took it up. And they started with the house pass language and decided to leave it as is, and then they attached it to a. So it comes back to you. That is the official Senate proposal. So your options would be to, as the chair mentioned to to concur. And also concur with further proposal of amendment. So if you didn't like the new language that's added on there, you could, you know, this committee could choose to make a recommendation that the body. You know, with further proposal of amendment, which would maybe just be retaining the 18 portion and not as 103 portion. And then in that case, if it passed the body, it would go back again to the Senate and the Senate would answer you. You could also at this point instead of either concurring with further proposal of amendment you could choose to to request a committee of conference. So those are your options, but this is a very common thing where bills are combined and that's permitted by the rules and So Michelle has this amendment just come out of Senate judiciary or has that been on the on the Senate floor in itself and they voted on it. Yes, it was it was supported unanimously on the Senate floor. And it was added in the Senate committee, not on the floor of the Senate. So, right. No, the committee of jurisdiction took it up to testimony from the same folks that you've heard from today. And they worked on it. And, and like I said, they chose to keep the same language I did make one technical change in that the version that the House passed last year, when it was referring to cannabis crime. It referred to marijuana crimes because at the time we called it marijuana and then after Act 164 passed last year. My office to go through and change the term but that is the only change other than then just one technical change the language is identical to what the House passed as a by passed out of House judiciary last year and then passed by the body last year. Thank you. Thank you, Michelle and and Bob I also and committee members I also want to note that there is a bill that we have on our wall that we can't see but on age 268 that does have the good Samaritan language in it. I believe Selina is the lead sponsor and I think I'm on it as well. And, and, you know, so, because we weren't able to get to it, I did know that the Senate judiciary committee would get to it. And like Michelle said that often that this is how, how things get get passed and, and especially in this case where, you know, many of us have heard this, this testimony. I am glad that the Senate was able to to get to it. Ken. Hi, thanks. Michelle just so. I understand this. So h18 I was, I was fine with last year and everything. And then this s 103 gets passed on a Senate floor and everything like that. And then s 103 then gets attached to h18 to become one bill is what's going to go to the house floor to get passed. Correct. Yes. So the proposal before the house right now and so is there looking the house is going to be looking for your recommendation. Essentially, whether to concur concur with further proposal of amendment or ask for a conference committee as 103 doesn't really exist on here this is just h18. You can say they took the language from s 103 or you could say they took the language from the representative Colburn and grads bill that you have in your committee now, and they have incorporated that into h18. And so h18 as right now, it includes the two issues. Which is s 103. You know, and I don't know if you talked about this earlier if you'll recall when you guys took up the issue last year and passed the bill in the house last year, there were two, two issues there was the study. And then there was the good Sam law. The recollection was that most of the concern about that bill was around the study of sex work, rather than the immunity language but I don't know if anybody else has that recollection or not but that seems, I seem to remember that it was less that about this was having to do with there was a directive study look for different organizations to be looking at updating the prostitution laws. Yes, that's not that's not a part of this. I, I, I recall that and I, and I think I've got a little bit more experience there to figure out just how this whole thing works so thank thank you very much. Selena. Yeah, I was, and I was just going to know I don't remember what the exact sound. Sorry, Mike, I think I've got something a little garbled, I don't remember what the exact floor vote but was but it was, it was close to unanimous, even with the study attached and we did, although I think there was there were very lots of varying opinions about to Ken's earlier question about whether to just go ahead and decriminalize sex worker remove our prostitution statute from, you know, chapter from from the books, so to speak. There was actually a lot of agreement about the, the that it merited further study and just being at those laws but I think that's right that that to the degree there were concerns or, you know, objections it was it was more around that question of kind of advancing further study and that this was really broadly supported by the witnesses and and by the full house. And I think it was unanimous unanimous vote in our committee last year as well on on basically this bill with some additional provisions. Right. Thank you. I agree with that but that's when it was h18 without this extra language of s103 I mean. No, I but I'm actually speaking about what I think was h568 last year for 68, which was that we passed in this committee and then on the full house we passed these same provisions that are in s103. Now being amended by the Senate so this this language had the full support of this committee last year as well as the majority or maybe even the the full body of the house it passed with really strong support of the house so What was that number. I think it was for 68 last year I'll look it up for you can put it in the chat. Thank you. Nicola was five it was h568. Oh 568. I can put a link to it if you want me to in the chat. Thank you very much. Right. Thank you and again. Thank you. And again that bill was one of the bills that because of our abrupt shutdown we, we weren't able to get to. But as Selena said certainly had full support of of this committee as it was constituted last biennium and the house as well and it did have the study in addition to the good Samaritan language that that we're seeing here. So the vote was, I can tell you was. I think it was 126. The yeas were 126 and the nays were 19 on the house floor. Thank you and it and again that bill included the, the study. Yes, it did. Right. I am. I think the vote the yeas might have been more. If this study wasn't there. Can I help. Ken and Bob would it help first to actually look at h568. Now. Where, where are you good. I'm looking at it right now just to see how I voted and, and Michelle probably already know knows this but I think I voted I was okay with it. I was reading it when you when you asked the question I'm sorry. We voted that one out on the floor last year. And we voted that. Excuse me. We voted that one out of out of committee unanimously. And on the floor. The good Samaritan portion got very minor questioning at all. It was, it was really the portion about the study group to look at modernizing Vermont sex worker laws. That had a great deal of questioning. Those are great deal of interrogation in regards to that and of course I can't speak for the other members of the house who were present on that day. I feel pretty confident in saying that I think most if not all of the 19 may votes on the floor that day were in regards to discomfort with the study group and the possibility of eventually changing our sex worker laws, then they were the good Samaritan that was that was that got a very easy pass on the floor. So, and I will say that, yeah, I was disappointed that the bill made it through the house and then because of COVID was one of the bills that died. You know, certainly that sentence fall a lot of bills on either side didn't make it because of COVID last last biennium. So I am pleased to see that at least this portion of a bill that I thought was a good bill has been resurrected in the Senate so I certainly hope that we can concur with this. Thank you. Thank you. Well, and thank you for reminding us that you were the reporter that's that's really helpful. Ken. So now that I go and I look at it. And I thought this is as this one along. Yeah, this is what I was going to see. This is a bill that I, I voted for and then the nays were the mostly the Republicans. And that's where I got. I got a little bit of talking to. Welcome to the world of politics. Thank you. I'll do more than you Republicans on the floor. I'm glad you supported this. What's that. I don't undercount your team there were more than 19 Republicans on the floor that day this, this, this bill was supported by a decent amount of Republicans as well when it was on the floor. Thanks well. I do recall. Well, sorry, Madam chair. Yeah. I recall when this was on the floor. I think we took a brief recess for caucus kind of that might be what you're remembering. And the Republican caucus was divided almost down the middle on it. But I know I supported it and there were many others that did decent legislation. In my opinion. And Ken and others I think you know that that in committee, we're able to take the testimony and really understand, get understanding of the, of the policy the way legislation can can impact those who are most impacted by by these bills and and that when a bill does come out of a committee policy committee like ours, such a strong boat that often our expertise and in the subject matter is, is respected, and, and people defer to it because, because we do do the work and listen to the listen to the witnesses as as we have today. So, I think that we should remember that. Selena, did you, or no, yeah. No, I think it was going to make the same point that we'll do that. Yeah, had lots of lots of try partisan support and support from independence. And while we're, while we're at this I'll just make the point that sometimes some people look upon others of going and saying, we look at it different very differently. We expected a lot different of you, and very disappointed. So it happens. That's part of politics that's part of the politics that I personally can't stand. But also it's our job to go and represent and, and even when we don't agree, try to work to make something, something better and that's just, that's just, that's just part of the business and if you don't, if you don't like it, get out. Thank you can. Coach, did you wanted to add something. Well, I was just, you know, reflecting back on that day and looking at the voting that did we divide that bill that day. I, you know, I was wondering. Thank you for asking that because I was wondering that Michelle's looking. I think that I can look at the legislative issue. I think there was maybe a proposal to divide. Yeah, and then that failed. Yeah. And, and then it moved forward, because I think that was the question I think the division was to pull out. That was the piece because if that was the real question, not as much the rest of the bill. I think that you know there was enough support for the bill in total, except for that. That portion. And I think that's why the division was called for, you know, on the floor that day. Which, you know, you know, which falls into this whole conversation, you know, sometimes, you know, the bill can be considered or it looks strong, and there's a resonance that comes up. And that's usually where you'll see, you know, a bill being divided, you know, but thanks. Thank you. Thank you coach for bringing that up that regarding the study language. Any, any other questions or comments, committee members. Bob. I think the problem with the title and social for, you know, why we let it from unity and the good Samaritan bill. I just think it's kind of ironic as to which bills attached to the problem that we're talking about child exploitation and one breath. And then the bottom portion of the bill is talking about prostitution and drugs and so on and so on and so forth. I just, that was my questionnaire as far as, you know, I was attached specifically to this bill. And then we voted on past. Yeah, I know I, I hear you. To me they're both dealing with exploitation. And Selena. And I'm not sure if coach how to hear that Selena. I was going to say, really the same thing. I think there actually is some strong resonance. There in that, both the underlying bill and this proposed amendment. Really seek to address instances of exploitation and create just, you know, stronger pathways for getting help to folks who could be in really vulnerable situations. And I would agree with both Madam chair and Selena. It's that path that occurs. You know, when I when I was doing social work for a while. One of my biggest fears for the young women that were in the care and custody of the state was that they'd get caught, you know, like in that, in that, that weird trafficking. And then, you know, sex exploitation. And it's a reality. And anytime that we have an opportunity, I think to put our finger on the scale, you know, to hopefully shift that. That's the, that's our, our opportunity, you know, to make a difference. So that's our conversation. Thank you. And Bob and others I think also both of these bills. Address power and control violence and gives us an opportunity as I said to try to break that cycle and, and, and prevent that, that violence. Not seeing any other hands. And I'm hoping we're not going to be on the floor too long this afternoon that we will get back into committee I'm not sure if anybody knows otherwise, but I'm hoping that that Tom will be back and that we can that we can vote on this. So I realize we're ending a little bit early but let's do that I am available coach and you wanted to touch base with me. When we sign off anybody else.