 is we want to decide whether we want to have this opt-in or opt-out option. I mean, that's the question, right? Yes. Okay, that is the, because if we decide not to go with the opt-out, then we don't have to worry about language. Okay. If we decide to go with the opt-in, then there's a chance to review the language. Okay. So what are the questions about the two basic positions here? Are there any concerns or questions? I don't have any questions. I didn't support it originally because I frankly think we've done enough to let people vote. I think there's some responsibility or some level thereof to get to a town clerk and get yourself registered. So we're going to do this. You don't need to use yourself to a town clerk. You can register right there. Which is, for me, the big plus is that you meet people where they are. And I think that's part of the gift of the DMV. They are registering. They're here to register to do something they need. And actually it's a nice opportunity to remind them that the government is helping them and supporting them in whatever program they're getting assistance from. And so you'd think that they would also want to be a voting member of society. So I think this is a good thing to opt in. I just think we want to make sure the language is positive. Okay. You're a yes for opt. I'm a yes for opt. You're a no for opt-in. Correct. I mean for opt-out. You would prefer having opt-out. You would prefer having opt-in. And I think it's been very successful at DMV. And I think build on success. Correct. You want automatic registration? You do not want automatic registration. It's not safe. What do you opt for? What do you want? Or do we have questions about it? I have one. I prefer the opt-out. The default will be registered. But for a question. We had talked earlier about how many different agencies are available. And I don't know if you have an account or a list or whatever it is. None of us have. We don't use our laptops in here. Would you read us the list that you sent? You sent it to Gail. I will, but I'm going to make an important point first. Because what the senators specifically asked was how many agencies are going to be able to do this. Or are going to do this. The list of currently designated agencies will not all necessarily be able to go to this method. So my best answer to that is only those agencies that are collecting the necessary data to register to vote. And for me, as a practical matter, those that collect it electronically and can transmit it to us electronically. That's part of the deliberation discussion process that this mandates between me and the agency. Are you collecting the necessary information? Are you storing that information electronically and could you send it to me? And to be honest with the committee, I think that most of the agencies other than DMV aren't ready to do that yet. And what this language requires is for me to work with them to get to that point. And that only would allow us to designate them to go to an AVR process when and if they're ready to do so. That being said, I can give you a quick read of... I just don't have any sense of scale. Sure. It's mostly agencies under AHS. So you have Dale. You have all the district offices of the Department of Health across the state that send this list to us. Did you send it to Gail? No. Oh. I only sent it to you. I was hoping you could forward it around to the next committee. I hardly ever take any mail in the middle of the day. By that. I'm sorry. It's going to Gail right now. What's that? Can you copy this again? Okay. I'm sorry. I thought that this was... So... My fault. Madam Chair. I apologize. I wasn't... And now if Gail could send it around, the committee can scan down this list on your own. No. No, we don't have... Excuse me. Do you remember what this was? I did. I'm close. I'm no tech master myself, as you can see. I'm still sending you emails. Okay. So we started... You started naming some of the agencies that currently do it or that might qualify. These all currently provide the opportunity to register to vote on an opt-in basis. And who are they? We will not necessarily be able to do the opt-out, but we will explore it. Examples, Dale, Northeast Kingdom Human Services, Northwest Counseling and Support Services, Clara Martin Center, Rutland Mental Health, Washington County Mental Health, every district office of the Department of Health across the state, DOC, Healthcare and Rehab Services of Southeastern Vermont, DCF, Economic Services Division, Child Development Division. Those are some of the pages. So that... All of the VA's. And all of the community action agencies. Yeah. Vogue, Rehab, Vermont, Rutland Mental Health Services, Northwestern Counseling and Support Services. All of these sort of programs and agencies. I doubt it. I don't think any of the VA's clients do this in general. And so we won't be moving forward with those. Right. So the ones you move forward with are the ones that collect all the data that we need to be a register go. Yep. So there's nothing untoward. Could you get some facts? Well, that's... Do any of these agencies... Do they have to be authorized under law to collect citizenship information? For instance, if someone... That's right. We'd love to do that. What do we have to collect? And then you say, well, citizenship. Can they add that to a form or do they have to get legal permission to collect them? We don't want them to do that. And that'd be part of the process would be asking that question. I would object at this at all if I thought that agencies were going to start collecting citizenship information so that they could do this. Okay. I would not... Well, maybe if it's naturally done in the course of the war. You're here. No worries. Just asking. Yeah, I know. So, I guess... I have no issues with having people automatically registered. But I really... This is just my stubbornness. I really would like to see coming back here and saying these are the agencies that are ready and willing to participate and they collect all... I mean, that they're qualified and then instead of giving just automatic approval for you to do any agencies come back and say these are the four departments or agencies or whatever that would like to do it. They're not going to be ready by January anyway. So, but what this is just asking for is if the green light don't have that conversation. No, this is the way it can automatically do it once... If an agency is ready, if HTRS... And they go with you to make it all work. If HTRS says we, for this particular program, we collect citizenship information, we do all of this. We electronically collect it and can do it. We're ready to go. This gives them the ability to say you're ready. You can do it. And it gives them the ability to start doing it. They don't have to come back to us at all and say, HTRS would like to do this, should we go ahead? Well, we could also just ask for a report because Will's going to be doing his work with them. We know that that is the... That's what I'm saying, that I would like them to... I would like to have us approve the agencies before they automatically are... Before they automatically adopt it. I don't know if anybody else feels that way or not. So I think we can do both. Can't we do both? No, this gives them the ability to automatically start doing it. That's what I'm saying. It does pursuant to the authority you would grant us through this legislation. Yes. Where you would be saying, we like how AVR worked at the DMV. We see what a great success it's been there. We trust the Secretary of State's office to evaluate these other agencies and work with them. And Senator White, to your same concern, that was a concern in the other body as well. And you can trust me and Secretary Condos to do it in a reasonable manner, right? What if you got a really crazy AVR-obsessed secretary next time, seriously? Really? Yes. So some breaks that were put on that is that language has been inserted that allows an agency head can say no. That's pretty significant. Because you're saying we're worth that this law is going and letting the secretary of state do this if they're ready. It now has one pretty significant limit on that, which is that the agency head can say no. Does that include you? You could say no? Yes. Well, he can say no if they don't meet the qualification. Right. And to Senator Clarkson's point, just right now to take that issue off the table makes us report on an annual basis on the agencies that have been designated. So there's your record, right? So we're not doing it under cover. I'm not asking for a report. Yep. But I understand what you're saying is you're suggesting we would have to come back on an individual basis for each agency. And that's reasonable, but that's this is sort of saying. I realize that that's what this is doing. That's what I'm just saying where my concerns are. So the HCRS, if HCRS decides that they're going to do it, they don't collect citizenship information now, but they read this and they say, boy, it would be great to get everybody in Wyndham County registered and they cover both Wyndham and Windsor counties. So they start asking citizenship questions because they want to be able to do this. First of all, I don't want them to do that. And it also says, so it would be the commissioner of mental health that would approve it. It may not be HCRS director. I mean, the commissioner of mental health is going to give the OK for HCRS and the designated agencies to do this for you to work with. And I guess that's OK, but they're an independent nonprofit. That language is written as the agency head, right? I don't believe it would be. It says head of the agency. So the agency, it would be the external agency. I read that as the head of HCRS. That's OK. That HCRS is the voter registration agency. That's what I was thinking, too. Yeah. That's why I think that language was added not only secretary commissioner but four other critical heads of the agency. And Senator Wyndham, I can see what you're suggesting. Of course, I would tell you that my practical experiences, we're going to have to drag any of these agencies kicking and screaming into this process, if at all. Typically these agencies really want to focus on their core missions. Right. They should. I really highly doubt that any of them will say, oh, I looked at this bill. I want to start collecting citizenship and doing automatic voter registration as a result. OK. Thank you. It's more that that will be the easiest excuse as a reason not to have to change anything. I don't know your experience. We've had a lot of experience with state government. OK. Well. Shaking off of the status quo is typically the harder thing. Do we have any sense of how many people, when they're asked, say, declined to vote to register at any of these agencies? Well, DMD would be our best. No. Because that is, they're automatically registered. Right, but they have to decline to vote. No, I'm asking them at Dale. Or when somebody goes into a line for Medicaid, they have to declare their citizenship. And they're offered the ability to vote. Any idea how many people say, no, I don't want to register to vote? Or yes, I do. Yeah, I know. But I'm concerned about the people that don't want to vote, who now would be automatically registered to vote, unless they positively resist it. So I'm just wondering how many people, if we have any sense of how many people decline. So right now they're not given so much the opportunity to decline. They're mostly given the opportunity to accept, because it's an opt-in. They have to say yes. Yes. So I want to know how many people say no. So I don't think you have a record of that. Yes, we do. You do? Madam Chair, you asked me to do that question. If you have the answer, I would love to hear. We get a number of declination from these agencies. The consistency of their reporting, that could be better. I can get you what we have. It's not a percentage of their applications, though. So that's a little bit tough because you get it right. So may I ask the other side? Which is part of the federal law, by the way, excuse me, Senator Clarkson. They either have to send us an application for anybody who filled one out, or send us the number of declination. Got it. So could I ask the positive side of that, which is at the moment it's an opt-in, how many of these participating agencies and departments, how many do they send us, how many people choose to register? That I could work on for you also. We have this application source search in our checklist, one of those being agency registrations. It's a very small percentage of the total applications we get. Right now, 75% of the voter registrations we get are from DMV, online, or on election day. And so I assume that the concern in this section is raised by people in these areas who would think that we could get more registered voters if we turned it around and didn't create such a barrier, or what they perceive as a barrier to register. And that barrier is... Why is that a barrier of the opt-in, I guess is my question. All studies show that opt-out rates are significantly higher than opt-in rates in all contexts. So what would also be interesting just generally for us to know would be if we went to an opt-in, how many people actively then vote. It would be great to be able to track of the opt-outs, how many actually fought through it. I think we've only got like 48 hours to make that decision. There are a lot of groups that are interested in that data and ask me for it right now from DMV what you're saying. So how many of those that got registered through an opt-out that didn't opt out ended up going to vote? Because I think that would be a very significant decision. Well, that would be something that would be a follow-up. That's just, you know, if we implement something like this, you come back in a year. Well, he has it with DMV. But do we know the specific people? Because do we know? We don't know. If 17 people got registered to vote through DMV, we don't know that those 17 went and voted. There's no way of knowing that. Yes, there is a way to know it. It's just, it's time for some of you to think about it. Yeah, and does that really make a difference? I think it would actually be very interesting for us to know because the objective is to get more people engaged and more people voting. However, even if they are registered to vote in the DMV and then they're not voting, that's a concern to me. That's 55% of the population is registered to vote, right? But it's an opportunity for us to improve. I think the important point, though, is that it's certainly been shown, regardless of where it comes from, if you're registered, you're more likely to vote. Sure. I would just like us to focus again on the question that's before us, which is whether or not we want to go forward and go forward and allow this to happen instead of trying to predict the outcomes of who's going to vote. Okay, so I'm an opt-in person. I mean, I'm an opt-out person. I would support the opt-out. I must admit that I'm more open to this idea than I think I was last time we talked to. I know it was last year, last session, last month and not really sure where it was. It's all time warp at this point, but I feel less hesitant, I think, doing the opt-out. Within the parameters of the way this is laid out, which is the commissioner or the head of the department could, to what have to, agree to it. Realizing that it's probably only to be a handful, if that, you know, you can come back and tell us in January or the next session, next year how it's coming. To me, I tried to think of different ways to characterize this, one somewhat humorous one might be the will-don't-procrastinate bill. It's codifying what I've intended to do for a long time and it's pushing me to do it and saying I have to do it and report whether I have or haven't. Have any of these agencies or departments or agencies asked for this? No. Where is this coming from? You? Yes, and the Main Street Alliance. And a lot of other advocacy groups across the country who are seeing how effective AVR is and wanting to expand it beyond DMVs. A lot of the legislation that's passed recently in other states says do it at DMV and look into it in other agencies. Has these two things paired? We're essentially putting the second part on now having done the DMV before. So I don't know how much more testimony or editing we might do, but I'm ready to vote and part of that is because if I try to think of what's the downside, you might have people registered to vote that simply didn't show up. I don't see anything more negative than that. Do we register people all the time? Which is sad. I don't know. I feel more comfortable if there was some kind of a, maybe a sunset after a year that I just want to make, I really am afraid that what's going to happen is that agencies are going to begin to collect citizenship information so that they can, if they think that it's good, that they're going to start getting pressure from people to automatically register people to vote and that they're going to start collecting citizenship information so that they can do that. That ties, tell me I'm crazy, but we spent a lot of time dealing with the fair and partial immigration policy and judiciary and in here and I just think that that is a huge issue. I thought I asked a question earlier about do they need statutory approval to collect that information? Yes, they can't just start to collect it. I don't think they need statutory approval to collect that information. But that's where I feel comfortable because this is the check to that. How would you know? If they don't currently, if somebody reads this and then they say, look, we could, so the Springfield Department of Health wants to get a lot of people in Springfield registered to vote. They don't currently collect citizenship information. Would they say, let's start collecting it so that we can qualify for this? Yes, so to that I'm just asking about the internet, are there any positions or enabling language around citizenship status? So I'm wondering if we considered adding language that said that an agency can't start collecting it for the purposes of simply reading this without approval. So kind of checking if it's right now. You could add something in here that said only agencies or departments that collect citizenship information as of a certain date. So the language in the current bill that's proposed. Does it say that? Such designation shall be limited to a voter registration agency, one of these agencies or programs that in the regular course that would be regular is important. That means not adding something new of the agency or programs business already also implies status quo already is collected and verifying the documents necessary. What page? I think it's 12. 13. And whose agency head has said it's okay. House. That's there. That's there. Your operative language of this whole thing. And the regular course of the agency or programs business already collects and verifies documents necessary to provide proof of and individuals. Madam Chair, that's where my kicking and screaming comment was. The thought and the notion of a DOH agency saying we want to register more people. That's not our core mission. Why are you asking us to even get into this at all? Because it's federal law. Sorry. The possibility is still there. And the other thing you mentioned which I think is more real, more realistic, is the outside pressure. If they started getting a whole bunch of advocacy groups saying you should do this. That's right. That's right. That's a possibility. But we could put the brakes on that if we hear it. It's happening. And I think this language here, they already collected in their regular course of their business. So then is the Veldt suspenders piece saying something like, you can't collect this information for the purposes of solely for this purpose, only for this purpose. So if someone would say, oh, we're adding this field, data we already collected. And the purpose of adding that field was to make themselves eligible to participate in automatic registration. I wouldn't oppose that. And it would apply to all of these or all of these things like physical address. They should prove a lot. Right, right. So it would apply to Bredeiber, physical address, legal residence if you don't have to, if they don't have to already do that. I don't think an affirmative statement to that effect would do harm and might address your concern. Or it was. No sin. All right. Well, it seems like that committee wants to, I would add that sentence with an affirmative statement to that effect, that they cannot collect any additional information for the purposes of this. Right. Of accomplishing this. Unless it, well, I mean, I can see them. Okay, yes. Right now, and then I think if it weren't in the course of your conversations with them, it comes up as a possibility that they might want to, they need to bring that back to us. I would. Okay. So we're three, one and a half on that one. Okay. We're okay with that. I'm fine. Okay. The other questions that we have then were the, the dates, and I think that we heard we'll do want to talk to us about the dates that Representative Shaw and talked about. Sure. Betsy, you have that. I think that as it turns, just give us your spiel. Sure. I am actually agnostic and fairly neutral on that language to the extent that I had actually proposed something very similar in the first draft of the bill that came to this committee. And initially the concept also and the concept still does have the clerk's support, but the more that the clerks looked at the language and thought about the practical impacts of it, the clerks went through their support for this provision and asked me to remove it from the initial bill. If it comes back into the bill, the clerks are going to want to come in and talk to you about it. Reason being, so what this addresses is when a local election is held on the same day as a general or other statewide, basically the August primary or November general election and towns and cities like to do that because you get the turnout. So it's not an uncommon thing. We often have a local question being asked on those same days. Technically, those are two separate elections that proceed down their own course and just happen to be held on the same day. So under current law for the local election, ballots have to be ready by 20 days before. For the statewide election, ballots have to be ready 45 days before by federal law. So it has led to the situation in a lot of towns where the clerk has to send out the statewide ballots 45 days before. The local ballots aren't ready yet. The select board just hasn't signed the warning, figured out the wording, et cetera. Done the necessary hearings if you're talking about a bond vote. So their ballot's not ready at that 45th day. It is ready by 20 days, but a second mailing happens. And you'll get a bunch of clerks in here who will testify the fact that that's confusing for voters. I take those calls. A lot of times, the second local ballot will come back and unvote it. They say, hey, you already sent me my ballot and I don't want to vote too by accident. That's what it's trying to address. The simple language in this bill is okay. So if that's the case, if you're holding the election on the same day, the local ballots are due 46 days before too. Seems simple enough. That's pretty much what I propose also. Just the mandatory nature of that and effect of it, I think was uncomfortable for the clerks in terms of having ballots ready that early before the election in all instances. And the way Carol framed it to me, they can do that now if their select board gets their act together and gets the process all in place by it. There's nothing that says your ballot, your local ballot can't be ready 45 days before. And if she has a sense that her legislative body wants to hold an election in a vote, she makes that clear to them, well, get me the ballot 45 days before so I can send it out with my general election ballot. And I think they just ended up not supporting the idea of that being mandatory if you're going to hold that election. And so I think it is well-intentioned. I see where Rep. Sean is coming from. I don't know if he has heard the feedback from the clerks yet that I did. Because I think that when we first looked at it, it was they didn't in concept supported it. So then the... Another issue is that right now the deadline for submitting petitions to get an article on the ballot is 47 days. So you in theory could have somebody come in with a petition for an article on that 47th day and if this was passed, your local ballot would have to be done the next day. Which is why the City of Burlington actually proposed over in the House an idea that I think makes a little more sense too to help address this problem is to move back that petition deadline also to 60 days from 47 so that any local question petitions need to come in in time to get a ballot ready for this 45-day deadline. So take a lot more thought and we're going to be able to give it the next hour. I'm sorry, I guess I'm just not understanding the problem. I mean we do this every year at town meeting. Town meeting. Every year we have the possibility of a general election of primary and local elections. You don't have a general election in March. We have a primary. Not every four years. Not every four years. That's a fair point. Every four years it happens by statute. Every four years it's like not a big deal. And in the fall we have a general election on which we often A lot of towns like to take advantage of that turnout and mourn a special meeting. A lot of towns use that for other elections. For other business, yep. I don't understand why this is the problem. This doesn't say one way or another whether you can or can't do it. It just says if you do it, then the ballots for the local election have to be ready 45 days before. At the same time that the federal ballot has to be ready so that they can all be nailed out together in one. So this is for absentee votes. Correct. That's the problem. And it's a benefit that I think the clerks in terms of not having to do two mailings to the towns in terms of mail and costs and to the voters in terms of confusion. Lack of. But any town can currently do this. Can do it if they just get their act together. If they get their act together. But I have to say that it is really hard for sweatboards to get their act together 40 and for a petition. If a petition comes in on the 47th day to tell you whether it's legit or not whether it's worded properly properly and then you have to get it there and then you have to get it to the printer the same day so that they can print it so that you can send it out a day later. Yeah I think you're right Anthony. For instance to Senator Polina's point I think the LCT would probably want to weigh in if being a burden placed on select boards. Having been on a select board I would take this. Aren't too glad you're not on one now. And it's to their benefit to try and do it themselves right? Because then their absentee voters all get it at the same time as their federal ballot are more likely to get it. It makes total sense. I think that making it mandatory is the problem. And I think for Representative Shaw to legitimately say we're aware of the issue and we'll come back to it I would like to also to see if this isn't the right way to go about it if there might be. We can consult with the clerks Carol and work with us to come up with something that they could support. So could we do something though next year even though it's in the election year? I think we could. Oh well that's a good question. We could do something it may not apply to the general election of 20 year is but it might apply to the March election, the next of 20. We could even apply it in the fall. We can think about it. The ones we don't like to change in the election year like the deadlines or contribution amounts are the ones that apply throughout the whole. Will you be able to explain to them our discussion? I'll talk to them. Offline or in any context. I'll talk to them. It's not the same way we would take this up. Just a reminder it was in there and the clerks opposed it and we should talk to them and figure out a way to do it that they could support. That was the simple message. Oh I think that's essential. So we have two more issues that we might want to think about packing onto this bill tax and regulate. We're also there are about four other bills I can put in. Minimum wage It's an H though. Tuition free college. Tuition free college. It's an S though. Thank you. I can run for cover. Ryan, anything you want to put on here? Yes. Minimum wage I think definitely we could do our minimum wage proposal. Yeah. I think we have another vehicle over here. But there are two actually bills that we did pass that do affect elections. One is the corporate contributions and one is the public that and the public financing all we did was change the date and then set up a committee right? We changed the date but we also allowed people to take some money from their bills. We had to put a dance with Senator Lennon. Anything else that's up there that they haven't voted on? Where are we with that? I would like to put them on. You already passed them. We're doing public financing. We're making a change to public financing. Let's take one at a time. Would anyone else like some water first? Those are big things to discuss. You are? I'm dying. I'll be right back. Where were you on the change to the public financing? I know you opposed public financing in general. You were no on the changes. Thank you. Thank you so much. Where were you on the corporate contributions? Not the banning corporate contributions but Betsy's ingenious. I have to be test of the committee. Our left council person came up with a creative solution. Is that better? It just says that only individuals I was in the packs of parties rather than trying to find that corporation. I do too. I do too. Actually I like corporate contributions as long as I don't care who gives me the money. I was a normal vote. I was a yes but I might just ban the law if we pass it. I don't take corporate contributions so it doesn't matter I know you just get double the amount of money from the principles. You told me that one. So we meet in my opinion Madam Chair if you're asking for it. Sure. The effect of tagging either of those on will be that we go to a conference committee and risk losing the very, very important provisions that are in this elections cleanup bill. As the elections director rather than those three bills left independent of the elections cleanup bill with very important administrative changes that need to get passed right now. Just do one of them and see what happens. Thank you. Did they take up either of these? Not that I don't know. I might have done a walk through of the corporate contribution. If I didn't do it this year, I did it last year. Last year in almost the exact same form that's when they had Ben Cohen come in and their testimony also awaited in the session. And then the parties came in. So Allison what you missed was that the director of elections is reluctant to add them on to here because he's afraid that we will end up losing all that the administrative cleanup stuff that really needs to happen this year and that cannot happen next year. In our elections bill. In our elections bill. That there are things in here that he needs. We all need. He needs in order to administer and we need in order to have good elections. But don't you think we've those things when they're being passed the bill? If I can say what the house will say is exactly the same thing that we as committees are saying about the house right now. You're putting on temporary workers things and we've got no testimony on it all and expecting us to do that and then we're putting on two things that they've taken no testimony on this year. So they didn't do any work on these? They did. I have to say Sarah Copland-Hanses has very masterfully taken testimony and done the tax and regulate bill. She has spent a lot of time on that and she did it in a way that so she spent a lot of time on that. I don't think she anticipated getting that bill. No, I don't think she did. So she has a new chair and getting this bill that had nothing to do with Gabobs she didn't have time, a lot of time to take up issues that have to do with Gabobs. So that's why I mean it isn't that they opposed them but they they just didn't have time. She worked really hard on that. Okay, so let's honor the integrity of S-107 as it is and not add too much. I, Anthony, go ahead. Well I do think that the House did pick it up a corporate contribution bill because they don't like it enough to bring it up because they haven't brought it up for the last couple of years. Having said that I would prefer to tie it into this bill but I'd be more than willing to recognize it. I would lose that vote and we could just go with the 107 as it is. I don't know that Sarah didn't bring it up because she didn't like it. Different chair this year. Completely different chair and different committee and my guess is that they would both be more amenable to both public financing and corporate contributions and they were in the last because of the leadership in the... It's just frustrating that we passed the bill like five times and we can't seem to get them to but also it's frustrating because this is the natural vehicle for it. For both of those actions. Well, we do have several days so we don't have several days if we... Okay. We're talking about dealing with this on Thursday or Friday. Sending it back to the House. It's time to be done by Saturday. And you want this and we need it done. So we we should send it unencumbered. It's what it sounds like. I would add that one positive note though about the... that they cannot begin to collect information solely for this purpose. Right. I thought we already agreed to that. Did Betsy agree to that? She's written it already. She's done. Okay. I would commit for what it's worth and it may not be worth much at all to doing whatever I can to help you guys move those bills early next year. Okay. That would be great. Well, whatever you say is always worth a lot. But the challenge with corporate contributions I think for some of us is that it won't... that is substantive enough so that wouldn't have an impact until 2022. And I also just think the reality is because of how substantive they both are they won't happen this year. The effect would be the bill not happening. I just... For the reasons you cited they would have to be taking way more testimony that could happen realistically. And we just said the same thing about bills that they sent to us. Yeah. That we didn't accept because we didn't have time to take testimony on itself. Okay. Thank you. So with that having change so we will concur with further proposal of whatever that's called, however we say that. Does that technically mean it needs to go back to them? Yeah, but that's okay. We'll cut in two seconds. You can also talk to Sarah and tell her that's coming. She can prepare her meeting. And they'll be fucking with it. Okay. Thanks you guys. I thought it would be easy, but when I think about it we do do the same thing to them and they're accusing us. Well, we've gotten some big things added by the House. I'm going to like change the bill. We're having... Okay. So what next? Let's see. We're done with 107. We're done with the Charters. We did you're reporting that tomorrow? Yes, and I asked John for all of those. Yeah, if I need for finance. To go to finance and approach. You know why the 135 the agency of digital service went over there because there's this section in there that says they charge fees for their service because they're... So it has to go there. Then it's going to have to go to appropriations because they're going to figure out how to spend the money once it's collected. Okay. So we have the resolution. Yes. Yeah. So... Are we getting work back on 134? Not yet. So I don't know if you noticed it today on the House calendar they had H16 on there for you know their report of whether they were going to support our amendment. And they had only printed half of the bill in the calendar. They didn't have anything about the E911 Board about the Artificial Intelligence Committee that there were a whole but nothing about arbitration. Was that just a mistake though? It may have been just a mistake. Well it was a mistake. It's a big one though. But it's a pretty substantial mistake. Yeah, thank you. They just didn't print it so they stopped to bill and they have taken care of it but that's why if you hear anything that's why they didn't do that bill today. Before I take this up, can I add that we had testimony from Senator Sears? Yes. Would you call it testimony? I thought it was just sort of... Okay. And... Tim? Corcoran and Mary Morrissey shook their heads. Yes, they were supportive cheerleaders in the back. Actually Tim, they both said a word. Yep. Yes, I would. Yeah, he never said anything so I'm not giving him credit. Corcoran and Mary Morrissey. Tim speaks with his eyes. I would add them. Thank you. I also give a little cover in the Inventington if anybody's listening. Okay, family with 333. Oh, would I really? Good, well then I'm glad. Let's do this now so we don't have to come back. Exactly, because if you're depending on coming back then we don't want to be back. So we have the latest... the latest version of the... Do we have the latest version here? We should have 2.1. Okay. I've got a copy that here... It's changed substantially since the last couple of times we've talked about it. All reference to mission options... But other than that, I thought it was pretty... and then it got the quotes better. Well, it also puts the focus on Vermont's long-time leadership and opposing spread of the movement which I think is something that people in this building will relate to outside the building obviously. But I think reminding them that the General Assembly voted for abolition of nuclear weapons is a good reminder for people to have with them. I think that we've made it more appealing to the Senate while keeping it on target pollution use that phrase. While keeping it with the spirit that the citizens wanted it to be proposed to. Right. Yes, it consists with our resolution of many years ago in 1999. So this is sort of you know, it's 20 years later. This is the update. Well, part of the problem was talking to somebody about it. We also closed Vermont Yankee obviously because we were concerned about the effects of nuclear power. But we've gotten so used to as Americans living in a constant state of war like all this bad stuff going on around us so much that I think that we've forgotten about we have not thought enough about nuclear weapons in a long time. I agree. This is a good reminder, wake up call that this threat has not gone away. In fact, it's coming you could argue we're closer than ever. Yes, in fact it's going to be insidiously embedded unless we do something and stand up for it. So a procedural question we will vote it out today we'll bring it up it'll be in the calendar tomorrow. I don't know that do resolutions do the same thing they go unnoticed? Okay, so it'll go unnoticed tomorrow and tomorrow is tomorrow 30 so Friday it'll be voted on. I don't know we generally don't read resolutions Steve just Steve just read the resolution Yes, but that was a very special, we hardly ever read resolutions. So the question is given the fact that a lot of people have committed to vote for it do we really want to read it and do we want to encourage not having a roll call vote? I would ask my two questions I think those are good questions I would prefer to have it read it's not that long and I would prefer to not have a roll call vote but I could be wrong obviously but I thought that since it was treated as a bill treated like a bill sent to committee that we would present it like a bill on the floor I could be wrong but that's just my assumption that they treated it as a bill sent to committee that's because there's any policy or even if there isn't a policy or if they don't want to put it right on that county or if they treated it as a bill so I think we have to ask John Bloomer we should, so let's chat cause you know actually it would be wonderful if you presented it or either one of you presented it I would think that would be great better than it being read quite frankly it will be distributed to everybody's desks because it's so different obviously from what was initially present it introduced so I think it would be much better if we explain it briefly instead of it being read well if I would so check with with Bloomer and if it's treated like a bill there would be a report and the reference to the committee vote however you want to do that and I would ask that you presented it you've been more involved in it and you were one of the original sponsors I was not it's true you were not we're glad you've come along and I did have that and out of difference I can speak with well I don't know who might be on either side I can speak with people that might be on the side I'm going to find myself on not to request a roll call that's why I would not request a roll call I've been asking I've been asking people when they either say yes or no please don't I don't want to can I go find Chris do we know where Chris is I'll always I didn't hear that but we can keep it open for him because we know he's he was a reluctant maybe at the beginning as it was I and I think the both of us have come around and I have to say I've come around because of all the work I've been done on it I would not have come around to the original resolution well I think two things as I watched I mean because I was in early but I think what impacted us all was the hearing the committee hearing was very powerful I thought and I thought that was great and I'm really grateful that you pushed forward on that Jeanette thank you yeah I think we'd be in a whole different place if it wasn't for the hearing yeah it was powerful and wow so is there a a motion that we move that we vote out SR5 as amended that we amend SR5 with draft 2.1 that's the first thing and so Bray is not here Clarkson yes? Paulina? yes okay and the second motion is to pass out SR5 as amended Bray is still missing Clarkson is a yes Calmars now Paulina? yes I'll get Chris on those two votes good work thank you well and to move forward not just to stick with it but to move forward because that was the big decision