 Representative Ann Pugh from Sappbrook, I am Chair of the House Human Services Committee and I brought H57 to the House floor and H57 is a compliment to the work that you did on Opposition 5. What it does is it puts in statute what has been the policy that, you know, the non-Vermont has had no legislation that either promotes nor restricts abortion in the statute and especially in the current climate there is confusion controversy and I would say in terms of the debate and concerns that came out around what codifying current, what is currently permissible without any statutory, what that indicated to me was the complete confusion and misunderstanding of what in fact was the freedom of making one's own medical decisions was in Vermont in terms of reproductive decisions. This was a bill that puts in statute the right of an individual to choose to become pregnant or not to choose to carry a child to term or to have an abortion, the right to adoption, so all sort of aspects of reproductive freedom. And I think that we heard a lot of the testimony that you did in that and at some level it's a very simple bill. It does not change what in fact has been permitted in Vermont for over 40 years. Sounds very familiar to us. Yeah, I'm sure. Thank you. This is very helpful. Any questions for Representative Pugh? So another way of saying it also is that it not only preserves what's happened for the last 46 years it will sort of keep that in place until the voters decide on Prop 5 also, right? I will let Legislative Council talk with you more about the interplay between Prop 5 and this. They are separate. They are complementary and I would suggest that both are needed. Prop 5 brings to the voters in terms of do the voters of Vermont believe that a strong value of reproductive freedom for individuals is such a fundamental right that it belongs in our Constitution. Whether we pass Proposition 5 or not in 6 years will not impact if the Senate chooses to pass H57. Okay, thank you. And then the other question I had was I know that there were a number of amendments that were offered on the floor of the House but did the final version that you passed? The final? It didn't have any amendments. President, we walked into this not wanting to change what are the freedoms that the individual has in terms of reproductive choices. We were not trying to change what has, I will use the word policy, what has been the policy or practice in Vermont to maintain the current environment. Yes. Three years. How long does it take? Three years. Oh, three years. Oh, sorry. That's okay. Sorry, I apologize. Thank you for that clarification. 22, and this is 19. Yeah. I get that. That's three. That is three. That's why I'm not on appropriations. Senator Westley. Numbers are not a strength in Vermont. Senator McCormick. I'd like to ask you to speak directly to what has been, for many people in the vote of contention here. I'm hearing from constituents who are under the impression that this bill creates a presently non-existing right to create a new right to return on portions. Speak to that. We have, for the past 46 years, had no prohibition on any medical decision and on any medical procedure. You will hear testimony on the very tragic decisions, and you will also hear testimony, you may hear testimony on what is happening in Vermont in terms of that procedure. And I want to say it was the, it does not create any new right. It does not change what has been potentially happening in Vermont for the past 46 years in a hospital. What I do want to just reinforce is some of this is a question of whose decision is this to make. And the House decided that this is a medical decision. This is a medical procedure that is not easy, that is horrible, that is tragic, that is scary and sad for everyone involved. It is not easy. And it belongs in the doctor's office. It belongs in the medical provider's office between the individual and their medical provider. I can't be in your shoes. What was the vote in the House? I think you're asking numbers 104 maybe? They like that. Okay. That was pretty strong. It was a very strong, it was a, there were Democrats, I mean there were Democrats, Republicans, progressives and independents. And out of my committee, the vote was three opposed at the 11th. And when it came ultimately, when it came to the floor for the final vote, when you think of the people on my committee, one person changed their vote and became a yes. Just one more thing. I would say to you that if Prop 5 becomes part of the Vermont Constitution, that at that point, hatred decided would be moot. No. Because it's a constitutional right. So I think what I'd like to do is to have Bren answer this question. I think it's a, it really is a legal question. And I'll let Representative Pugh respond. There's no problem with that. I'm just going to say, Bren will go in and others will talk about both are important. What is in a constitution is the frame. And how it is carried out in a state is what are laws. And one is going to happen in three or four years and one will protect, will protect current practice right now in a time of confusion. In a time where the freedom of an individual, the right of an individual to make their own medical decision is being threatened across the country. It's not being threatened Vermont though. No one here has introduced legislation. It'll be threatened everywhere in the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court does, but at the moment. Right. The only way it would be threatened here is if we pass legislation that threatened. The legislature can always pass legislation. Yes, I can. Any other questions for Representative Pugh? Thank you. Thank you. And I apologize. I will not be able to stay till this and I know you'll do good. Thanks Tom. Thank you. This is our first opportunity to go through the bill. So we'll take some time to do that. And do you mind being interrupted in the middle of going through? And so we want to be clear about what the sections mean, what the intent is. I think Representative Pugh was fairly clear. It's to reduce the confusion that we have and that's going on across the country with laws being signed into place and the possible changes to review aid at the Supreme Court. And this bill, as Representative Pugh had said, should allow for Vermont to continue as it has over the past 40 some years. So we'll let you help us understand. Okay. All right, good morning. For the record, I bring here from Legislative Council here to walk through H57 as it passed the House. So Representative Pugh did a nice job introducing the bill. I would just reiterate what this committee already knows well from its testimony on Proposition 5 that in Vermont there are no state level legal restrictions on the right to give an abortion. And as you know, Vermont doesn't have a statute that creates an explicit right to have an abortion. And as this committee has talked about at length, there's not any Vermont Supreme Court ruling that has identified the jurisprudence on whether or not there is an independent right to abortion within the Vermont Constitution. Despite its decision in HM versus Leahy, which was the decision that invalidated the statute that prohibited a provider from providing an abortion. So I'll go into the bill and I'm happy to be interrupted at any point to answer questions. So Section 1 is the legislative intent section. So this establishes the intent of the bill and it does a couple of things. It states explicitly that Vermont doesn't restrict the right to abortion and that the intent is to safeguard the existing rights to access reproductive health services by ensuring that those rights are not denied, restricted or infringed by a governmental entity. And then the second sentence or the third sentence there provides that nothing about the act should be construed to underline the supreme legislative power exercised by the General Assembly in accordance with the Constitution or the judicial power vested in Vermont's unified judicial system in accordance with the Constitution or to contravene 18 USC Section 1531 and that is the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. So what this does is it states explicitly that nothing about the bill is attended to infringe those constitutional rights that are vested in the legislature to enact laws, draft bills and enact laws and nothing is intended to interfere with judiciary's right to interpret statutes as a constitution. And also nothing about the bill should be construed to contradict what is federal law which is a prohibition on the act of a partial birth abortion which is defined in that federal act. So I'll go into Section 2. This creates a new chapter entitled 18 as chapter titled reproductive rights. The first sub chapter is the Freedom of Choice Act. Section 9493 is the purpose and policy section and what this does is it establishes rights as the policy of the state within the jurisdiction of the legislature. So this committee did a lot of conversation about the Constitution and how fundamental rights for individual liberties flow from the Constitution typically. That doesn't mean that the legislature has not enacted laws that establish rights as a matter of policy. You've done that in lots of places. So the intent of this section is to establish these rights as statutory rights. But as you know and as you've discussed fundamental rights flow from the Constitution though that is the document that protects individual liberties. And so this is a little different. So the rights that are established in the purpose and policy section are first that the state of Vermont recognizes the fundamental right of every person to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization. And second on page 2 is the fundamental right of every person who becomes pregnant to choose to carry a pregnancy deterrent to give birth to a child or to have an abortion. So the next. This is language that is implied in the part 5 that is not explicit. So this would be if part 5 if that were a constitutional amendment in a right in place this would further elaborate on that right. Yes it would. Okay. Thank you. So section 94-94 just provides that interference with reproductive choice is prohibited. And specifically subsection A there prohibits a public entity from interfering with those fundamental rights that the previous section outlined. And subdivision B provides that law enforcement shall not prosecute a person for inducing their own abortion. Sub chapter 2 provides the prohibitions relating to access to abortion. So we start out in 94-96 with some definitions. It defines healthcare providers. This is a broad definition that is found elsewhere. Entitle 18 probably looks familiar to you. And it defines public entity as all three branches of state government, legislative, executive, or judicial. And any agency department office or other subdivision of state government including officers or employees within any of those branches of state government. And municipal government including any officers, agencies, departments, subdivisions of municipal state government. So it's a definition that includes all branches of state government including municipal state government. So the next section 94-97 this is sort of the heart of the bill. And it provides that seeking access to abortion by a public entity is prohibited. So let us go through it line by line here. It provides that a public entity is defined in the previous section. It shall not deprive a consenting individual of the choice of terminating an individual's pregnancy and it shall not interfere with or restrict. In the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information, the choice of a consenting individual to terminate their pregnancy. It also provides a public entity shall not prohibit a healthcare provider who is acting within the scope of their license from terminating or assisting in the termination of a patient's pregnancy or interfere with or restrict. You'll see that same language in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. The choice of the healthcare provider acting within the scope of their license from terminating or assisting in the termination of a patient's pregnancy. In the last section on page 4, 94.98, this is the enforcement provision. So this sets up a mechanism for enforcing the provisions in the subchapter. And it provides that a person who is injured by a violation of the chapter has a private right of action in Vermont Superior Court for Injury of Belief. And it also provides that any person who substantially prevails in that action may recover reasonable costs and attorney's fees. And then we've got the effective date on passage and that concludes our walkthrough. Okay. So since we're not, we don't get embedded, well, we have been recently, but can you just talk a little bit about the private right of action within Superior Court for us briefly? Sure. So that provides that a person who is injured by that subchapter. So if a person brings a claim that their right to access an abortion was interfered with or restricted in a way that would infringe on that statute can bring an action in Superior Court and the court can provide a legal remedy that's often sought in a civil action, which is essentially a court order for the defendant to stop doing something that's what injunctive relief means. Okay. And then it puts in parameters on what the person can recover, which is reasonable costs and attorney's fees, only if that person substantially prevails in their action in court. Okay. Yes, ma'am. We've heard that the right to late term abortions is limited by medical codes of ethics. Would this allow someone to sue if a doctor said, no, I'm sorry, there's no medical reason to terminate this? No, because the only entity that this impacts are governmental entities. So it does not have an impact on any provider choices. Vermont doesn't have any public hospitals or healthcare facilities. So it would not impose any requirements on a provider to provide an abortion or a medical facility to provide an abortion. Okay. So this is the laws, but it would not require a religious hospital? No. No. And there are also federal protections specifically for providers and for medical facilities that have moral or religious... So you're talking about abortion later in pregnancy? Well, that was just the one thing that seems to have... Yeah, that was a trigger, you know. It was a trigger. So we'll hear from healthcare providers the current practice and then how those things are handled. We did hear a little bit about that with Prop 5. Are there questions for Grant? There's questions. The question I had asked earlier, which is that if Prop 5 becomes the constitution, would seem to me that that would be self-reliance or enforceable through the judiciary? Yes. So that the legal provisions in this bill would then be moved? So I don't know if I would describe them as moved because I think that the legislature's authority to craft legislation and set forth public policy stands, regardless of what the Constitution says. So as this committee talked about under the 10th Amendment, the states retain what's called the police power or the authority to regulate for the general well-being of the public. And so I think that H57 falls within that authority. It provides that a public entity can't interfere with or restrict the right of a person to have an abortion. So whether or not that's rendered moved by the constitutional provision, that the right to reproductive liberty is guaranteed in the Constitution, I don't think I would go that far. I do think that there is an interplay between them. So if there's a fundamental right established in the Constitution, I think that that's separate from what H57 does, which is provide that a governmental entity can't infer until now. But it can anyway because it's constitutional, right? Well, it can. You just have to go to court and have it said that it is a Constitution. Laws are the way we work out what that constitutional amendment means and the case law and what is free speech. I describe it as my students as painting with an ever smaller brush. And also remember the article in the proposal provides that there is an avenue for the state to regulate that right as long as it meets that compelling, the state has a compelling interest in regulation. The compelling state interest. Okay, I think that answers my question. If this becomes law, then we have further to find what is or isn't a compelling state interest. I could look at it. Questions? More questions? Would you mind doing this for us? Would you mind going through the bill one more time and talking about what's in the bill? Because I think as we gain some facility and our understanding, it will do two things. One, it will gain facility, it will gain understanding, but also we'll be able maybe to ask more discrete questions. So it would be very helpful for you to do this one more time. Sure. Thank you. So section one is the legislative intent section. Again, that establishes the intent behind the bill. And it makes some specific statements about what is not intended in the bill. And the first is to undermine the constitutional authority of the legislature to prepare bills and enact them into laws or to revisit the policy decisions that were made in age 57 and change them in the future. Nothing about the bill is intended to prohibit that or in any way circumscribe the power of the legislature to do what it does, which is to revisit the policy decisions of the past or create new policy. It also doesn't infringe on the judiciary's role, which is to interpret the laws or the constitution. And also nothing about the bill should be construed to contradict the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Man Act, which I think that we talked about a little bit in the context of Prop 5, which is a federal legislation that prohibits the specific act, which the act defines as partial birth abortion. That remains prohibited under age 57. Section two, this is the new chapter, reproductive rights chapter, entitled 18. And it sets out those two rights that are established as the policy of the state. And the first is that Vermont recognizes the fundamental right of every individual to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization. And the state recognizes the fundamental right of every person who becomes pregnant to add or carry that pregnancy to term or to have an abortion. So that sounds rather unlimited, particularly the part of abortion. Does that mean at any point during the pregnancy? Well, be right that the language does indicate that a person has the right to have an abortion without specific restrictions on that right. And that I would say would reflect the existing state of affairs in Vermont because there are no current state level legal restrictions on the right to have an abortion in Vermont, regardless of the state of pregnancy. That just means the legislature doesn't get to decide when the medical community already has its standards. Well, in relationship to Roe v. Wade that is out there in... Right. I'm just trying to understand how that, in that relationship, if we can replace it with those, what that means. Right, so this gets us back to that tense amendment issue. So you're right that Roe v. Wade provides that states can regulate the right to an abortion later on in the person's pregnancy, specifically there is a row found that there was a compelling interest in preserving the potential life once the fetus reached the viability stage. But just as a reminder, Vermont doesn't impose any restrictions. So Roe v. Wade and its progeny applies to the states to the extent that the states do regulate the right to an abortion. So what the constitution does is it says here are the rights that people have. And states, if you want to regulate those rights, you have to do so within the bounds of what's constitutional. So for states that regulate the right to abortion, they have to look at those, at Roe and their progeny to determine whether or not they're regulating in the bounds of the constitution. But because Vermont does not regulate the right, that means that the right exists in Vermont to have an abortion at a new stage in the pregnancy. So again, that we're returning to the 10th Amendment police power of the states to regulate for the well-being of their citizenry. And if a state does not regulate the right to an abortion, it can choose to do so. And actually, I think it was the Casey court even acknowledged that states can choose not to regulate abortion even within the parameters of what the court deems as constitutional. There's a, I can read you a quote from Casey. Subsequent viability, the state in promoting its interests and the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate abortion except for it is necessary to preserve the health of the mother. So it is not outside the bounds of the constitution for a state to choose not to regulate within their policy or authority to not regulate. And just to follow that up, so what you had said earlier is that there is no jurisprudence in this state to that determines any regulation, nor do we have any state laws that currently regulate. Right, so there's not, for most of the court jurisprudence that finds that there's an independent right to an abortion. As we discussed, the Beachham versus Leahy case really turned on the fact that the statute that prohibited a provider from providing an abortion by also not prohibiting a person from getting an abortion was essentially a validation of the right by the legislature and the court said if the legislature is going to validate this right it can't then prohibit the safe exercise of that right criminalizing the act of providing an abortion. So that's sort of a different, that jurisprudence doesn't rely on the constitution, doesn't find any independent right for a person to have an abortion. So this gets clearer and clearer the way it does but it's also not simple. Thank you Senator. Joy, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I sort of summarized your answer before I left. I just want to make sure about that. The amendment does put in, it makes reference to a compelling state interest. Right. And that's why the bill to become statute is not redundant or moot that it actually does sharpen the focus from the amendment. Yes, I would say it does. It speaks to the question of what is a compelling state interest. Well I think that, I guess what I would say about the top five is that it provides that there's a fundamental right and the state can only interfere with that right if it has a compelling interest to do so and it regulates that right in a way that is narrowly crafted to achieve the interest of the state. So I see age 57 as being narrow. Yes, but it also doesn't infringe on the fundamental right that's established in top five. So I'm not sure that it applies in that way. But what top five does do is it says state you can't interfere with this right unless you have a compelling reason to do so and you do so in a way that's narrowly crafted to achieve that compelling interest. And what age 57 does is it says any governmental entity can't interfere with the right but it doesn't provide that strict scrutiny standard. Again, that's for the court to determine. Senator Bessler with your question answered. We'll get there. Okay. I mean, as for clarification, this is an opportunity to do that and we will hear from practitioners who are in practice today who are working with and supporting or providing abortions for women. So they'll understand what the current practice is in the state. And this is... I'm not saying that's where I'm not really clear. I'm not really clear what the current practice is. I'm clear that we don't have anything in statute in what that means. But I'm not sure if this really directly, it doesn't change what we have is the law. But does this reflect what the practice is here? So I would... Obviously the providers, I'm sure we'll be happy to answer that question. But I would say that because it imposes an obligation on a governmental entity and no one else, it doesn't impose any requirements on any provider or any medical facility. So in that way, I don't think that it does interfere with what is current practice in any way. That wasn't my point. My point was, does this reflect what the current practice is? Which I think is a different place. And although our hospitals are not government entities, they do all have charters. And I'm not sure how that all relates and what it is I'm just trying to learn. So I'm happy to share what I know. They may be the better witnesses for that. I would wait until they can. And we'll probably have no questions. Right. We'll circle back. I think that's good. Thank you. That's good clarification. Thank you. Okay. Where were we? Okay. So I think we were at Section 94-94. This is the section that provides that no governmental entity or no public entity shall interfere with those rights that were just established in Section 94-93. So a public entity can't deny or interfere with the fundamental way to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization or to choose to carry pregnancy to term, get birth to a child, or to obtain an abortion. And then Sub-B provides that no law enforcement shall prosecute a person for inducing, performing, or intending to induce or perform their own abortion. Sub-Chapter 2. So we've established the definitions for healthcare provider and public entity in 94-96. And then moving on to 94-97. This provides that public entities shall not do these four things. They shall not deprive a consenting person of the choice to terminate their pregnancy. They shall not interfere with or restrict the choice of a person, a consenting person to terminate that person's pregnancy. They shall not prohibit a healthcare provider who is acting within the scope of his or her license from terminating a pregnancy or assisting in the termination of a pregnancy or interfere with or restrict the choice of a healthcare provider acting in the scope of their license from performing an abortion. So, I mean, so much of the bill is with respect to the right to carry a pregnancy to term or not, or to have an abortion. But there are other rights embedded in the bill as well. Yeah, so that those specific, like reproductive freedom that's included in Proposition 5, that's really found in Sub-Chapter 1 of the bill. In the Purpose and Policy section, and then the Interference of Reproductive Choice. So I would say that Sub-Chapter 1 is sort of a broader provision that governmental entities can't interfere with a person's reproductive liberties in general. And Sub-Chapter 2 really is specific about public entities not interfering with the right to an abortion. So I know that there have been instances where people have not had access to contraception or other support services, reproductive support services. So this would guarantee that you would have some access. Right. It provides that, you know, a governmental entity can't interfere with that access. All right. Questions? So the questions that have been asked, I think, would be very helpful as we go forward. If you can keep track, I think each one of us will keep track of our own questions. There's no question about that. But if you can keep track of the questions that have been asked, and then from your perspective, from the legal perspective, if we can circle around back after we've heard testimony and then we'll be able to understand the implications of the bill, that would be helpful. Anybody else? And I will be here, I will endeavor to be here when you hear testimony so I can answer questions. Yes. So I think it will be on the agenda early next week. And so we'll be taking testimony at least a couple of days next week on this. We'll keep coming back to it. Any other questions? I think you're all experts in the subject matter. We are. I mean, Prop 5 was a good way to prepare ourselves for understanding this and ask some pretty, I think the questions have been asked are really terrific. So we'll just keep thinking. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Great. So I just threw budget discussion on the agenda because I think we should keep coming back to it. We have the information that has been brought to us by Stephanie with our human services spreadsheet. And I know you're all prepared to do this. And we've also been hearing about things like reach up, obviously childcare. And I've gotten some emails from people with requests to keep certain things in the budget or otherwise. We are not the appropriations committee. So everybody needs to know that. And the second part of what you need to know is we are not probably going to be responsible for making the final decisions. Having said that, we have a significant responsibility to look at any of the bills that we have, but also at the budget to assure that the most vulnerable are covered and that we have adequate funding for all the programs that we have in place. So with that in mind, I will open it up for people or I will begin a conversation. Well, I have a little wish list anyway. Well, I think the childcare bill would be my top priority and funding it to the extent that we've asked for, which is just under $8 million. But I think the part of it is that there are a lot of moving parts and we should try to keep it all together and not just give a portion of it but really try to give them the $8 million. That would be my top priority. How much more for a computer system? Well, I think there are some questions that we're going to have to ask and if we don't ask them, they will be asked down the hallway. So whether or not the computer IT is the first place to begin, I think it's an important question. I also raised the question about there's a million dollars in the childcare bill for workforce development and we're talking about workforce development and maybe there's some creative way to utilize that funding and other funding that would help others as well. So to think of that, I mean this is all about childcare. I know it's one of the governor's projects that he's very interested in. I think we're all interested in it. The other piece that I keep thinking about is what's going on with reach up. With good economic times, you see a decrease in caseload but that doesn't change the complexity of some of the cases that are there. Senator Westman has been working on that. No, I just said we talk about resilience and stress and families and we haven't up that basic reach up in 10 years. We threw some money at apparently the crisis in the emergency rooms with mental health and this slacked off a little but it's not that screaming headlines it was but that's still an issue. We're still not paying competitive wages. Well, I go back to Nina when she was here and when she got on reach up she still wasn't able to do the things to take care of her family which she needed to do. $170 a month and a family of four. That's the rent in most places. Just barely. We won't talk about affordable housing yet but I mean that's the rent in affordable housing. If you're looking at the base payment at $640 and if you look at the chart for childcare where they've got reach up participants doing $75 a week that's $300 offering your $640 a month. Who can live on $340? It's a vicious cycle. Yeah, you can't get out. And I put an email, I guess a bunch of us did this morning from a lady who's mother's in a nursing home. St. John's. That was going to go there next month. Yeah, okay. You know she gets I think it's $47 a month for personal needs but 21 of that goes for television and stuff to the nursing home. That's an extra charge. Plus if she gets her hair cut once a month it's $16 which is a real deal. But that leaves her with $10.77 for the rest of the month. You know that's to buy a nightgown and a dress, toothpaste, all of that. So the daughters are doing it but there's people that have no family. You talk about quality of life. Well that also, I would much rather instead of us taking up a childcare bill if in our response to the Appropriations Committee we laid out our priorities as we go down. I will tell you there are some huge holes. They say it's inadvertently but the house cut foster care payments I heard this. something like $350,000 that you have to come up I gave you the rates, the base rate for someone with zero to five kids is $13 a day. And so... They eat that. For breakfast. So they eat that. So we've got that. Level three residential care homes and we have around 130 of those. The base Medicaid payment is $37.25 a day. That's for three meals. That's why these businesses are going out of business. And the more of the residential care homes that go out it puts more pressure on our 30-some-odd nursing homes in the state to increase that $37.25 a day by $5 it's a $2 million item. So we need to be strategic about this in what we do or I can tell you in Appropriations it will become very hard to put everything together and recognize what the priorities are of this committee. Well, I have talked at length with Senator Kitchell. I know you have. And you, you've done an amazing amount of work both on reach-up and foster care and it's been very helpful. And we have the whole issue of the relationship between case management for reach-up and the parent-child centers and the contract by $1.6 million. And then, and the question is as we were talking before if even with the reduction in caseload you still have the complexity of caseload and the need for those wraparound services that families are getting in the parent-child centers. I remember last year when we were concerned about nursing homes closing and or being taken over the agency saying part of the problem was they based rates assuming 80% occupancy were doing so well with choices for care they don't have 80% occupancy. Except now we've taken choices for care and money and given to Sash. Yes. I would just like Robin Peter to pay Paul. Yes. And... You got it. If you've handled up the trees maybe they'll have 80% occupancy in the nursing homes. But we've been on a starvation diet for 10 years and the economy is due to slump. So then the question becomes is childcare the silver bullet? I mean that is the question. Because if we're going to invest the $8 million in childcare is that going to solve the problems that we're seeing in these other areas? I just raised that as a question for the committee. There's also cuts. There's cuts in the estate tax. Cutting the revenue. There's cuts in capital gains. Lost revenue. Is that in the new tax bill? That's a new bill. Is there any new revenue? Yes. There is new revenue that the house raised and spent. But we don't bag on that yet. Yeah. And next year is a downturn year. I mean, well, it's a level fund year. Yes. First of all, my annual full disclosure disclaimer is that my wife is with Action Circles who deals with a lot of children's issues. But I want to echo the comments about the parent child centers and reach out. Because I think it's important. It's not just a matter of administering the pass-through of the money. It's that they do a wraparound. Not just the money. Right. People or whatever has gone on in their lives that they need to reach out. That there are other issues besides money that need to be addressed. They are not from the government. That's right. That's right. There are people who are intimidated by the government office who are not. They have the power to take away their children. They are terrified. Help. Yeah. I actually go at home. We're sitting, Jonah and I are sitting having a coffee. We're talking about all of this. Because I can't help not. Your house is as exciting as mine. And the conversation comes up. If you were, there are roughly 20 people doing case management at the parent child centers. We have 53 people in DCF that are doing the case manager piece. Granted, the case managers in DCF have all of the cases that are over 60 months. So, one could look at that and say it's probably the harder. And the case load is down 37%. And the amount of people that are requiring case management services is down about 50%. Because there's a portion that don't want the case management. So, as you look at all of that the pushback for me is if I have less work and I can't manage the service, would I rather give the work to those 20 people at the parent child center? Or would I rather reduce staffing in DCF? And what would that look like and how would that in that piece do that? The CIS, as we've heard in here, is desperate need of money. There was $2 million in the governor's budget to help in that era short up. And all of that money got cut in the house. So, as you struggle to put together that whole budget those are all things that are... But when I go home, Joan would say to me in the chair if I was a reach-up participant I'd rather go into the family center than go to a state agency. Because you're getting down to... You're not only dealing with the immediate problem you're dealing with the ongoing issues as well. Well, it's more friendly. There's also a claim that's made to me I don't stand by because I don't know enough but I've heard that it may not be that the agency is overstaffed. Because there are fewer people on reach-up but there are a lot of people who are being deferred as in my understanding is their situations are not being managed at all because they're deferred. Well, but when you're talking about going from a caseload 34 to 24, 24 to me seems like a pretty reasonable caseload. That's what it's reduced to within the agency. So what is wrong with that? It's also the caseload we're talking about in the parent-child center. What is wrong with that? Why is that not an appropriate caseload? And why do we not help manage that? We're not going to stay stuck in good economic times. But my question is are we better to put the money towards the rate for the reach-up participant than in caseload? Yeah. Yes. These are not easy decisions. This is a preliminary conversation. We're going to have to dive down a little bit deeper. I am meeting with some folks over the weekend. So we're trying to see who we maybe want to have come in and talk about this a little bit. And then the question is there are 21 positions being lost through attrition. So I don't know where those positions are. Do you guys have a sense of where those positions are? And we were doing the child and the two kids died and stayed custody. We had double the national average caseload. This is what I'm saying. I'm trying to remember. I thought 24 was... That's what it's going to now. Yeah. But it has been, I can remember, just saying 34, 36. That's way too high. And especially if you think about the complexity that we have. Yeah. Maybe that's an explanation for our increased foster care. I don't know. I mean, what's causing that? Okay. Well, I do think your question, though, is a very good one about if we invest in some of these sort of bigger picture. I mean, we need to... There are things we need to do immediately that are urgent. Like, I agree about the whole discussion about REACHEP and parent-child-centered cases. But I do think it's very important for us to try to keep the big picture in mind and would help paying families with some of these really big ticket items that they have to spend a lot of money on, which I think child care and housing. I'm always a big proponent of helping people stabilize their housing because that, in the long run, helps with a lot of other substance use disorders, mental health issues. It's a kind of domino effect that we heard from Nina. Right. It's all connected. It is. Each one that we solve is solving one adverse experience. Yes. Maybe more. Okay. And we did... So I've written down the list of things that we've identified that are important to us. Not in any order. I'm going to add for the cause. I do think that we should pay attention to things like choices for care and SASH, and I don't know if you're talking about that. We're definitely going to have to. Yeah. But you're definitely going to have to talk about that. As I said, in relationship to, you know, residential three community care placements, you know, one of the issues that just came up is they've sent... This week in Dale sent up a letter to everybody in the residential care settings. A lot of these are smaller places. Right. They range from three to 150. There's a lot of stuff that's under 20 beds. And they just sent them a thing and said, their nighttime staffing has... There has to be two people on staff and most of these few places are one. And I had a woman call me yesterday and said, if you send me the two staffing people at night, I'm going to have to close. And particularly with the population that is Medicaid, that's $37.25 a day. And as I said to you, if I increase that rate by $5, that's $2 million. For one place? No, for all other places. $2 million. That seems like an appropriate thing to do. Wow. But I'm just saying, you know, if I'm stealing from choices to care, to do sash... Where are you going to steal that from? Right. Res care, we used to have community care homes. That's what these... These are. Okay, when I worked with Project Independence, which was an adult, it still is, there's adult care, we had a whole bunch of these residential care homes, mostly run by elderly widows. The concern then was most of them were going to need the care or the work, you know, that eventually these were going to close and Washington County said, well, if we take them over, we have to put in elevators and we have to do all of this stuff and we can't afford to do it. But they took in mostly single older people, fed them breakfast, put them on the bus to the adult day, we took them all day, sent them home nice and quiet, you know, tired, fed them dinner, put them to bed, some of them were unlike the Army. But it kept people able to be independent and in their community. And, you know, most of them didn't need medical care. Some of them had some starting dementia, they needed some supervision, but somebody needed to make sure you took your pills. But they were a whole system that was aging out at that point and some bigger places have come in. But it's the groundwork for folks who will be on Medicaid and in the nursing home. And what they tell you is the acuity of what is happening in the 130-hour places in the state. It's harder and harder to serve and there's a certain segment of the population. There are people that have some mental illness. Oh, yeah. Developmentally delayed, infectious in those. Yeah. So we had... It's a safety net. Yeah, so the seat that... I agree. The seat that came in serve important. The question is, how high? And what is the scale that we look at? And so I know that Riva gave us information early in the session on another way to pay for it. So maybe we should have her back in to talk about it. We're also going to look at, in here, I invited Graham Campbell in to talk about tax credits for childcare, which might offer a different possibility. I don't know. It just cuts revenue, which just exacerbates Richie's problem. So it's all rearranging deck chairs at this point. On the Titanic. Yeah, Steve would understand. Yes, ma'am. I'm just going to say this for myself in listening to it. Please. So the young woman that comes in with the three kids, I want her to have the best quality childcare that we can afford. But her basic immediate problem was there's no placement. There's no placement. There was no placement. In the big city. And so 51% of everybody that's out there can't find any childcare at all, regardless of whether it's good childcare or bad. And she lost her job because she couldn't get placement. And there's a balance within this between taking people that are already in the system that you're trying to move up and trying to get more people into the pipeline. And, you know, there are certain places in the state where they've got tech centers running on programs where you get, like, 21 credits towards college, do they? But moving more younger people towards doing childcare. And my question for this committee and the committee down the hall will be, should we be pushing in that direction a little more? And I've pushed Riva and the Department of Labor to work on that issue. I might use an example. The tech centers have programs for LNAs in home health agencies. And a lot of the starting people that are going into the home health agencies get that LNA certificate and then they move on in it. Is that not a model that we might look at? Right. It didn't ask for that proposal, but there it is. But I'm trying to... A lot of credit for chemistry in your high school with the right teachers. Why can't you get part of your college credits we require for childcare in your high school? In your tech center. So when you come out, rather than say, well, I'm going to work for a year because I hate school, I've got a place to go. She's on education. We've been working on a committee bill to try to provide a year, maybe two years of tuition and include our tech centers. We've been looking at tech centers and the state colleges. And yes, we are... We would be very open to that. Why not talk with Rich about what... or Anne about what might be a little paragraph that would help encourage that? Make that happen. From what I understand, at North Country and Newport, they are doing a program now that gives a certificate for somebody to go into childcare. And that's consistent with the Vermont State College program model, isn't it? And so if we can expand that out, can we get more young people moving towards childcare? I'm totally in favor of when we get them in, trying to give them scholarships, lower pay, and stuff. But right now, we're desperate to open places. Well, we have to do it all at the same time, right? Because they have to be able to... See a future? As much as I can afford. Yeah. You don't want to go on with school anymore. I'm just a senior. I've been here forever. And so you go out, you get a job at McDonald's or somewhere. And you say, well, you read the senior class and the paper. I'm going to work for a year or two. You work for a year or two, you never go. You end up meeting someone, you have a kid. You're working at McDonald's the rest of your life. If you could come out, and rather than see your options be McDonald's or Burger King, if you could come out with a job, and a job, a starter job, job placement, you can work, but you're going to work at a career that has the potential of being a career. And that's an awful lot better place to be in. Plus, we need you. It's kind of what we've done in Chrome Health with LNAs being trained at the tech centers. And then they get in that world and then they move on. But not everyone likes to draw blood. Some people like kids. Let's give them options. And none of them likes to counsel people. So we need all those things. We need that workforce. This is not our workforce discussion, but it's getting there. I mean, we do all the programs we want, but if we can't stay... Yeah, yeah. We would be very... I'm giving you something right now. We're planning on taking up... in January, just to warn you. This has got everything in it, so now you can take it and play with it. It needs to be a bigger pack than that. We've got more ones than that. There it is. That's chapter one. That's just childcare. Okay. That's all you need. That's all you need. And I might say about that computer system in childcare, they don't need it this year. No. But it's a three million dollar item and if I don't get on the track before stuff begins to dive next year. You're never going to see it. I'm never going to see it and they can't change the rates. And I think it's quite compelling the way they want to change the rates. Yeah. I think a lot of really good thinking is going on. Yeah. Well, this is going to be... the childcare piece, the whole bill is nothing more than an appropriation and it's a great appropriation. No one is arguing about that, but it's how much should we be putting into this given all of the other needs that we have. And I believe that we do have a responsibility in this committee to identify our policy priorities and not simply to rubber stamp everything that we see. I know this is hard and send it down the hall. It's not fair to the appropriations committee. But we do have some things that we feel very passionate about and that includes childcare. So we want to make sure that whatever we do, we're not crossing the baby out of the bathwater. That seems to be... Or the nursing home. Or the nursing home. Or portable housing. Yeah, but when you talked about economic development, this just isn't just low income people. Yeah. This is working people who can't afford to have children because they can't afford childcare. And it's across economic lines. And it's probably the best thing we can do to support families to support... None of them can find a way so the kids don't get sent home every time they spike a fever because they're teething. They'll also help attract new families and there'll always be new people on the stage. That would be a big red flag and look what we remember. Member Senator Claire was in here. She had... It wasn't just a dentist. It was like an oral surgeon. Right. We're not going to invite him in. And he said, I will move to Middlebury and either open this practice or join this practice. But my wife, maybe she was teaching at the college, but we have to have childcare. Claire could not find... And money wasn't the object. Right. And that is the number one the number one ask. So whether it's the remote worker program or whether it's trying to encourage a child psychiatrist to be in the state or whether it's the LNA who's trying to make a living and support family. They all need childcare. Absolutely. If I had to choose family leave, I'd choose childcare right now. And I've been working on family leave for 11 years. But if you come to what families need first and foremost, like maternity leave. Thank you. That's already been being discussed by the state. Yes, I know. I know. Oh, it's not dead. Exactly. That was told who said it was off the record. And then it doesn't. What was off the record? The candy tax. They were just looking at the candy tax as a filler flow. Oh, no. I know. How do you define candy? That's the big problem. Well, that's the problem. Yogurt covered chocolate. What about Reese's peanut butter? Yeah. Snickers. Snickers have peanuts. Peanuts are good for you. That's why I brought them. Okay, so could you please do this for me? Please look at the budget information that we have. And if you need more detail, we can ask for that from Stephanie Barrett and then look at what's in the budget for the things that you care about and that we all care about. Because we do need to set our priorities. This is obviously our first discussion. But everything has to be on the table for us in here. What are the programs that we have that really offer the safety net, support families or keep people in a living situation that meets standards. I love people to be families. Yes. That's a big range that we've just talked about. I'm going to live with myself. I have to say, I think a low birth rate is a good thing that's necessary. But once the kids are here, we've got to take care of them. Thank you, Senator. And I think the parent child centers are a very good thing. I didn't think I had any doubt about that. We don't have to base the choice of whether or not to have children on the availability of child care. I think they should make the choice, but that should not be the deciding factor. Yeah. And I, thanks to Building Bright Futures or whoever keeps sending me these notes to have my constituents talk to me, I've had people say it's been so terrible finding child care that we can't have another child even though we'd like to. That's not a reason to make that decision. Not good. That's just tie that up with interfering with decisions we talked about in the last bill. Yes. It's all tied together. It is all tied together. Okay. So we have been looking at age 249, but we've never heard from the house reporter. And so I've invited Mary Beth Redmond Ann to talk with us. And is Ann Theer going to come in too? I think she should be. Why don't we just hold? This is the way to clear the room out. Wow. Happy to know. Don't take it personal. Happy to know. How exciting. Hi there. Welcome to the first floor. We hope. Thank you. When you hear your family. Yes. Thank you. Peter gives me, but I've been trying to come in and talk to you. I wasn't even in there. I was in transportation. Don't worry. Okay. Wait a second. Thank you. Thank you for having me. I'm used to seeing you up on the third floor. But today we've had every time a few here and now we have you. Thank you for the second floor this morning. Oh. For a meeting. Thank you for gracing us. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Mary Beth Redmond. Representing Essex Town. I also serve on the House Human Services Committee. I want to talk to you about H249 which would provide additional reach up program supports to Vermonters around the state who receive a car from the Vermont families. And I won't speak to how it would be paid for because I understand that's kind of a shifting sand right now. But I want to speak to this from a policy standpoint and our committee is very much in favor of this additional support. So it would be an appropriation of monies or a tax exemption however you decide for the waving of the purchase and use tax on each motor vehicle as well as the registration fee for the first year of car ownership. A lack of transportation is one of the biggest obstacles that impoverished Vermonters face when trying to get and maintain employment. As well as to take care of their family's doctor appointments, school and personal needs. The transportation barrier is exacerbated for many reach participants as two-thirds of them reside in rural communities beyond the bounds of public transportation hubs. Those without reliable transportation are limited significantly in terms of the kinds of employment they can pursue. To address the situation each year DCF purchases 60 cars from the New England based nonprofit organization Good News Garage for reach up eligible families in every county of the state of Vermont. Each vehicle cost DCF $6,000 which comes from funding already built into the department's base budget. The cars are repaired, inspected matched to the size and needs of the receiving family and come with a one-year warranty. In fact, one of our members from Winooski Halakulstin founded Good News Garage in 1994 with the mission of providing affordable and reliable transportation for low income individuals and families. And in 2016 Good News Garage presented its 5,000 vehicle to a family in need. Car ownership is one of the greatest predictors of economic mobility. Recipients of donated cars throughout this program earn higher incomes too. $200 more per month from Good News Garage. They are also more likely to enter the workforce, maintain jobs, return to school or pursue additional training. 90% of those who have received a vehicle by a Good News Garage reported increased hope for the future of their families. One mother described the pride she felt as she was able to pick up her daughter from school and experience her daughter's joyful reaction providing additional supports to cover the purchase and use tax and the first year's registration fee per car equals a program support of $434 per reach-up participant. 60 recipients per year would receive, would require a total appropriation or exemption of $26,040. The savings of $434 per family would free up income to purchase gas and oil changes to save for car maintenance and to provide for other family needs. We contacted the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles who fully supports this legislation. In fact, the idea was hatched due to the collaborative work of representatives from DCF and DMV. The effective date of this bill would be upon its passage and our Committee on Human Services heard testimony from the sponsor of the bill, the member from Winooski, Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Council reach up director of the Department of Children and Families senior advisor to the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families and the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the bill passed out of our Human Services Committee by a vote of 7,00 and your Committee on Human Services respectfully requests your support of this bill. Wow, good floor report. Thank you. Actually, that was really nice. That put this in the context for us. Have any questions for Mary Beth? Yes. So I have heard through my other job actually that quite frequently a car can actually be you know, a bit of a burden to lower income people because there are so many other expenses related to it. So this would cover registration and tax, but then there's gasoline and there's maintenance and there's insurance on the car and that sort of thing. I'm just wondering what your discussion was in Committee and about, you know, all that other stuff. Does it still work out being, you know, is the cost benefit analysis still worth? Well, one thing we were assured by DCF is that the vehicle, they buy the cars for $6,000 but they are given cars that are, you know, market cost much more valuable than that. So the cars are in, you know, they're in good shape. They're not like cars that are really, you know, just barely kind of hanging together. The other thing is Good News Garage provides a year warranty. So there's a full year warranty if there's any breakdown or any difficulty they can return the car and it'll be taken care of. We did not basically DCF recounted to us stories of people who who really want the car and for them, you know, having the big challenge for them is putting the money up front for all of these expenses related to the car so that if that is waived, then they have the ability to kind of like plan for the gas, plan for the insurance, all of that. So we did not receive any testimony of concerns about that, that there were greater costs on the other end. The bigger issue were people wanting vehicles because many of them, and the other thing is we looked at where these vehicles get placed around the state, like where are they, and they literally DCF does a good job of having them placed really statewide in every county of the state based on where the needs are. So a lot of the people receiving these cars are in rural areas and this is a huge drawback for them finding employment outside of their little downtown. So we didn't hear really any kind of push back that this is, you know, but I appreciate that you have. And what's that testimony right from? Well, we've already taken some, we've got a little bit more, but I don't think we need a whole lot more. We need the DMV and we need the DCF. That's about it. Honestly, you said $6,000? Yes. Who gets paid there? Who is that paid to? It's a good news graph. Yeah, it gets paid to goodness DCF has an appropriation in its budget for 60 cars per year at $6,000. So they pay it to Good News Garage. Because I've donated two cars. They were not $6,000 cars by the time I donated. Yes, so I hear you, I hear you. And what Good News Garage, the majority of the cars they receive are, they sell them for parts and they don't get passed on. There are cars that could donate to them that are in really good shape and they can then turn around and resell to DCF. But a lot of them don't get paid. They take about $500 right off. Right. That is actually the vast majority of cars they receive. That happens. So we have a list of people that you heard from and we'll probably pick up a couple more. Sure. When you talked with DCF about the funding of this and they said it would come from attrition, vacancy savings. Yeah. And did this bill go to ways and means? So here's what happened. Here's what happened. We originally had talked about it being a waving fee, you know, a tax exemption. So that's how it had been proposed when the idea was originally hatched. When we took it to ways and means they didn't really like that approach. They had made the point that they didn't want to start a precedent which was interesting because they have other exemptions. Like there's one for veterans I believe on automobiles or registration for automobiles. So then ways and means sent into appropriations and asked them to create an appropriation that would be in DCF, you know, to cover this cost. And I don't think that I think DCF doesn't feel comfortable having it set up that way. So then kind of things started to change but that was kind of beyond our involvement. Did House Transportation take a look at the bill? Yes, they did. They took a look at the bill and they approved it unanimously. Yes, it did go through. In what context did they look at the bill? I would have to ask them but I believe they looked at it at that time when it went through their committee it was in its original form. So they would have looked at it under the guise of the exemption. So did they actually have possession of the bill? Yes, yes they did. My more specific question is there's VY money to move people into hybrids and electric vehicles and there's a fairly significant pot of money here. And did they ask the questions do you know around whether or not some of that money might be able to go in to help in this area? That's a great question. I don't know the answer to that. I think that's something my sense is no because it moved out of theirs very quickly. They just kind of gave there but that would be a good thing to inquire about. I'd like to ask and see if any of that VY money might be eligible to... VW are you talking about? Yeah, the VW. That was great. I was thinking for months it's the VW. Sorry That's a great question. What are you trying to understand? It's really for public. What about yes but it is to move towards more electric vehicles The other thing I'm happy to share if you want me to send it to Maya is I'm happy to share with you the listing of where the cars in the last year have gone around the state if you're interested in seeing geographically where I can send that. DCF has that? DCF sent that to us, yes. We'll have that then send it to Maya and then we'll have them come in. The Volkswagen settlement $19 million the question is would some of the functions that are being you're looking at with providing vehicles to this would there be any way to make some of that money eligible for this? I think as opposed to encouraging electric vehicles. No. We'll take this conversation up but first questions for Mary Beth. Good question. Mary Beth, anything else for Mary Beth? Going once. Twice. Thank you. Thank you for being here. I appreciate it. Sounds good. Now we can guide into EW. I was looking for a clarification of the question to Mary Beth. So with the BW question I don't think they took it up but I just wanted to ask the question to make sure it's not. There's a lot of buses and stuff but not totally. Here's what I'm going to do. I'll talk with the chair of transportation unless you want to do this. I was thinking about going over to joint fiscal and seeing if Neil could tell me what. What the BW fund is now. What the definition and what the eligibility is. What is it you're looking to do? If somebody can get a hybrid or electric vehicle through Good News Garage could we pay for it? You're not looking to divert money from the electric vehicle incentives? No. We could fit something into this. Are you suggesting that the money would be used from the fund to pay for the vehicle as well as the purchase and use? I'd like to find out. I would ask that question. Are you going to ask that question? I'm going to go for and ask the question. That's good. I thought I'd bring it up to you before I did. Good. Do that because then we'll bring your response and if we need testimony on that that'd be great. We're almost done. We do want to 249 we do want to take up and finish. I think it's a really good bill but it's the funding piece that we need to find out about. Let's take five minutes to do that. When he finishes. We have appointments we can do. I have some. Yeah. We need to talk about Monica. Monica Hutt. Yeah. She gave me her bio. I have one. I'm going to call her. Next weekend. But I think if we can get some of these upstairs then it won't be just filing up. Yeah. It's not. Next week we'll have Algo Bay and Martin Dean. He'll be coming in. We have a difficult time scheduling but we're working on it. And he will be here at some point. No. Okay. So Senator Ingram you have somebody? Monica Hutt. Is there a discussion? Does someone want to make a motion on Monica Hutt? I move that we confirm. Okay. The motion has been made to confirm Monica Hutt. Discussion. All those in favor? Aye. Monica Hutt. It's okay I keep talking. We're doing. Do you have someone? I think you've seen the sheet for Corey Gustafson. His resume was put around the table. Yeah. Sorry. You want me to go to the office? We're good. Does someone want to make a motion on Corey Gustafson? So move. I move that we confirm Corey Gustafson. Okay. Discussion. All those in favor of confirming Corey Gustafson as commissioner of DEVA? Aye. Opposed? Now the others that are I have two. Okay. You want to do your two? I have one. And then the paper work down. But I'm sure Maya has a copy. So the first work I have done, Hutchings, which was for the Children and Family Council for the prevention programs, said he wanted to do it. His family was originally from Cherry Grove in Brownboro. Worked for the University of Virginia at Darden School. You know. Does she want to do this? Yeah. This is just um would like to be on the council. Now lives in Dorset. Blah, blah, blah. Do you recommend that we Okay. So discussion. All those in favor of Miss Hutchings? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Good. So that goes upstairs. You have the you have the form, right? That you can take upstairs. Looks like that. I gave you the letters. They're someplace. And you have the next one. I never let us have the only coffee. Was that the only coffee? Yeah. Thank you. I gave mine to Faith. Oh wait, my ability not to lose things. Go ahead for your next one. I still have old mine. Mine with the green folder. I have mine. Well. Senator, do you have another one? No. I do. I have another one. Judy Rosenstreich, who is from my district. She is a retired department of mental health senior policy advisor. She has done a great deal of work on with DMH and coordination with the Green Mountain Care Board developing CON submissions. She is a social welfare policy analyst for DCF. She has served on criminal code revision commission and various administration of justice, successful aging, state employees, system for board of trustees, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Vescue, friends of the Vermont State House. She was in the house of representatives and now she is in Chittenden County and she's been nominated to serve on the Board of Medical Practice which has those from 2019 to December 2023 and I talked with her on the phone. I think she would make a good she's a very analytic and would be very good. Really? This is one year. Wow. All right. She'll be a new member and she's very excited about being on the Board of Medical Practice. So I'm going to move the way you confirm. Any discussion? All is a favor. All right. I'll take that upstairs. I have one. Okay. Amy Davenport to the what did you have? Commission and Children and Families? Council. Yeah. Yeah. Most of us I think know Amy. I've known Amy for years. She read the law. Practice law in Montpelier was appointed a judge. I caught her in the hall and talked to her in person. Was a judge named by Madeline Cunin became the Chief Administrative Judge. Has retired. Has been on the council for four years. Has done nothing to embarrass the Governor and would like to continue. Can I ask a question? Sure. I sat around the street. What's wrong with the room? She said she fell. Oh, did she fall? Were you here yesterday to see the minister? Oh, yeah. That was cool. Tom Harding. He gave me his family as I missed it. It looked like a peg leg. Yeah. It's this thing. It attached to his knee. And when he's sitting, it's straight out. But when he stands up, it touches his lower leg and he stands on the peg part. But he said he doesn't have to have crutches. And he's got like 24 plates of screws. And he's an ankle. How did he do it? He fell on the ice. I know. Don't do that. My son fell on the ice. He's just got the plate and the screws. And it hurts every time the weather changes. It's a pain management in Montreal. My son can predict the weather from the speed. He says and it gets really so. Did you get nervous? Did Amy Davenport have a cold? No, we have not. We have a motion. Further discussion of calling on the ice. Don't do it. All those in favor? I oppose. We've done it today except for Monica. And I will find Mike. And Cory? Thank you. I've got Kevin Mullin who we heard from. But I don't have his resume. I'm not in a position to present on the floor yet. I'll hold off. We have the table for each one. We have the letter, that's all right. So I'm going to ask him to send me. Good, that's what I did. I actually had planned on doing nominations this weekend. Yeah, I'm going to do that. I promise. OK. All right. So we'll all hold off on Kevin. I'll try. I'll try. You and I will do the same thing. I'll open a chemistry test. Oh, shoot. I'm supposed to be Dr. Levine. Dr. Levine, and next week. So we can stop this. Uh-oh. Yeah, that's probably not the week after. OK, the week, what we need to get.