 talking to you, Dave. Can we do the health disparities, Bill? Yes, we can. Yes, I think Teresa, I didn't mean to cut you off. I think Teresa sent this out yesterday. This is age 210. You'll recall last night we approved $180,000. The appropriations piece. The committee, our committee is recommending, and I'll be calling this for a question shortly. I just want to quickly reframe it for people. We're recommending in three instances to amend age 210 from the healthcare committee. The first one is just a technical, there was a typo. They spelled the word definitions wrong, but we fixed that. I can speak to that. And then the second one is, we've said in the report section, we're saying we're not guaranteeing funding for FY23. We want your health equity advisory commission to come back to us as part of their annual report with what, if any recommendations for FY23 should be in the budget to do their work. And then we renumbered the section and we authorized, we recommend an appropriation of 180,000. And the, anyway, so I'm, I, if it's, if it's appropriate and I, there's made a, I'd be glad to offer an amendment. Okay. But may I ask a question before you do? Of course. We agreed to pay the 180 in the budget. Do we need to appropriate it here too? Or should we take it out of the budget having appropriated it here? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. What would, what's typical. Just leaving in the budget. Yeah. Maria, are you there? These guys are so. Yeah. Yes. You're trying to, you're trying to get your work done. We're talking about H two 10. Which is. Can we take your time for a couple of minutes? Yes. We need to do that. So I think those are the proposals to appropriate. 180,000 dollars to the agency of administration for the racial. For the two positions associated with the racial equity. Director. For the health. For the health equity. Yes. I'm sorry, health equity. budget. What is the best way to do it? So we are carrying that in the budget line right now. Let me just, we're trying to reconcile all the numbers, but is this a, I'm just trying to figure out if we had it in base or if we had it in. Last night we had it in base. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Yes, it's in base. I just checked. Pay, it's in section B100 base for health equity. Yes. That's what we have. So we have it there. So we should take the appropriation out of the bill. Yes. And we'll go and revise section B100 to reflect the 180 base in the budget. In the budget. In the budget. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Good. Okay. Thanks. Dave, that means that we need to not appropriate it in the bill. So, so we will be recommending an amendment in two instances. We're correcting a typo and we're asking the health advisory commission to come back to us with a recommendation in their report for FY 23 on any appropriations that might be needed. Period. Correct. Or but hang on. We've got some questions going on. Marty. So, well, I put it in the base if we are not certain we want to continue it. We're going to ask them for their opinion regarding future needs. I thought this 180 was for kind of organizational work and getting some consultants to help them out as opposed to hiring an employee to get them organized and get moving and then as David said for future needs. You're correct. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. I apologize. You are correct in your understanding. I guess it's there in the base. We don't have to if they come back with a recommendation that doesn't sufficiently convince us we'll move it elsewhere. Yeah, I understand. You could put it in one time. You could put it in one time. I don't know how it ended up in the base, but it did. I may have confused things because I said racial equity when I started asking Maria. So we will we will talk to her. Marty and Dave, will you please remember when we're going over the numbers to have a conversation with JFO about where is this? We did agree that we wanted to pay for this position. I mean for this work, we talked about it, we agreed to it. So I think I confused things when I said racial equity and not health and I think it probably is in the one time. Why don't I send Maria an email and tell her we've approved moving it from the base to one time. Would that be okay? Yes. I'm going to write this down. I'm sorry. What was that approval that you just did? So the recommend. Go ahead, Chair. Go ahead, Mary. So I think I was confusing when we were speaking earlier. In H-210, we decided that we wanted to spend $180,000 in one time money to support this. And I think when I asked, do I initially said racial equity, which is in the base? Yeah. If you look at this again, I think the alley, you'll see that we've made this money in $180,000 in one time money for health equity. Okay. So go to the director of racial equity. So there's, yes, but in the base, I don't mean to complicate everything, but I just wanted to say what my understanding is. Yeah. In the baseline, in section B100, there's two things. There's the 180 and there's the 250. And they both go to the office of racial equity, correct? The 180 is for the health equity. And the 250 is for the positions. Okay. So in fact, then we were just having a conversation and the 180 should be one time. Okay. So you want that to go to one time? Okay. Okay. Let me. Okay. Yes. I will make that change. Okay. Marty, that was what your understanding was. Dave, Dave, was that your understanding? It was a one time. Okay. Yes. Yes. Brea has that. We will. No, I think I have to. Yep. And if I may, I was going to ask Teresa. I thought I saw what she is. Teresa, I think, could you reach out to Jen and just have her update this amendment? Or else there's going to be a technical problem because it renumbers some sections. That's a, that's a K, it's a Katie bill, not a Jen bill. Okay. Would you reach out to Katie? I'll reach out to her. Thank you. I thought we were so close to putting it away. Yeah. No, no, it's not. Okay. Thank you. So we're going to have to wait on that one too. Trevor, are you here? Yeah. Hi. I'm here. Do you want to, are you, are we ready to talk about 183 and the amendment for the, this is the act relating to sexual violence? Yeah, I'm ready to speak to the amendment. We had some changes we need to make this morning, but I've gotten back from the council and I believe that Teresa just sent an email to everybody with the latest version, just to give you a little perspective when we heard the bill age 183 when we got to the appropriations section. We had some concerns in a couple places. One, breaking out the appropriation that was going to support the Indicative Sexual Violence Prevention Council. And then we have sort of a standard practice, I guess, and how we break that out. We break out the four DMs and then the other expenses related to that. And so we asked them to do that and they did that. Our other concern was that they were referencing providing an appropriation to the Vermont network, you know, a network against domestic and sexual violence. And we were concerned that, you know, we generally do not appropriate to organizations that are not departments or agencies of the state of Vermont for exceptions to that. But in general, that's the general practice. So they went and developed an amendment. All the other part, too, was that we wanted a little bit more language around the pilot program, which was for the Vermont Forensic Nursing Program. That was expansion from just hospitals into, you know, general practice, if you will, outside of the hospitals. And also some reporting requirements. Well, they came back with an amendment and what they did is they referenced the Center for Crime Victim Services as receiving the money, which is fine with us because that is a, you know, a department of the state of Vermont, but they continue to reference that this grant would then move to the Vermont network. And we talked a little bit this morning, said, well, it still doesn't really work for us. We need to remove the reference to Vermont network. So let's counsel went back and I have a clean copy it's been sent to you. And I'll just walk through where those changes took place. So essentially in Section 7A1, we removed to the network against domestic and sexual violence, which occurred after the Center for Crime Victim Services to provide a grant. And we just took that section out and continued on. In Section 7A2, after Center for Crime Victim Services to provide, we took out a grant to the network against domestic and sexual violence. In Section 7B1, after Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services to provide a grant, we took out to the network against domestic and sexual violence. Section 7B2, we removed the reference to Vermont Center for Crime, I'm sorry, we removed the reference to network against domestic and sexual violence in relation to the reporting requirement and substituted the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services. There was a C in the original amendment draft 1.1 that referenced that the center was not going to charge a fee to grant making to the network. We removed that completely because we just didn't want the reference to the network to be there. We understand that there's a good understanding between the statutory and the sponsors of the bill and the center and also the Vermont network about how this will probably go down. And we did want to remove those references to the private entity. So that's where we are right now. Yeah, thank you very much, Trevor. Jim? Yeah, Trevor, thank you for the work on the amendment and I would move that we report it favorably. Oh, excellent. Is there a second? Somebody second it please. I'll second it. Thank you. And Meada, so she's busily going. Move to amend H183 with draft, what is its number please? Draft 2.1. With draft 2.1. Move to amend H183 with draft 2.1. Okay, got that. I'm ready, Madam Chair. Okay, is there any further discussion seeing none? Would you please call the, I call the question or please call the roll or let's move on. Yes. And the question before us is our amendment, House appropriations amendment to H183. Representative Fagan? Yes. Representative Feltas? Yes. Representative Harrison? Yes. Representative Helm? Is he with us? Yes, he's. What? Bob? We need to unmute Bob. Let's, we'll come back. Shall I go on? Yes. Representative Jessup? Yes. Representative Shy? Yes. Representative Squirrel? Yes. Representative Tolino? Yes. Representative Townsend? Yes. Representative Yacobone? Yes. And Representative Hooper? Yes. Bob is there. I'm back. I hit the wrong button. It sent me out into La La Land. I mean, yes. You're a yes. And this is on the amendment, Bob. Okay. Yeah. So would a motion be in order, Madam Chair? Yes, it would. We accept favorably H183 as amended. Is there a second? Second. Second. What was the voice? Trevor seconded it. Okay. Ready for the one second, please. Sorry. Sorry. Move to accept favorably H183 as amended by appropriations. Okay. Are we ready? Yes, we are. Yes, I shall move to accept favorably H183 as amended by House appropriations. So representative Fagan? Yes. Representative Feltas? Yes. Representative Harrison? Yes. Representative Helm? Yes. Representative Jessup? Yes. Representative Shy? Yes. Representative Squirrel? Yes. Representative Tolino? Yes. Representative Townsend? Yes. Representative Yacobone? Yes. And Representative Hooper? Yes. Okay, 11-0-0. And representative Squirrel is our reporter. That's correct. Okay. And so today. Oh, sorry. Yes. So it's the usual process. There will be an email that is received and needs to be sent on to the clerk. And we should send this off. We want to get this needs to leave the committee today. Okay. So that's one down. Okay. And, um, Representative Pugh, thank you for joining us. I think. We are waiting to see for Katie McClendon to join us. And we're getting. The meeting. I would like to thank you for joining us on H one, 70 one, the child care bill. We had excellent walkthrough of it. It feels like ages ago, but I believe it was just yesterday. We, we had a few more questions about it. And, um, Kimberly had, this has been. And I think we have a proposal, a new proposal of amendment. That has been looked at by human services. And I was, and why don't I stop and ask, let you rep you tell us where your committee is with where we are. Okay. And there are lots of things where. What I can say is the, the language. And I think that. Between when we reported the bill to you yesterday and. Right now, we heard some questions from you, you all from appropriations committee. And upon further looking at it more closely, some questions. And concerns. And new information from the department of children and families. We have tried to address all of those, which. And in. I have not because we, because the language is still being completely. Written. I've not been able to share the language entirely with the. Human services committee. I have been able to share the, the general construct and what is sort of happening. And then I can. And I can say that the committee supports, I can't tell you whether it's an 11, zero. I can tell you that a majority of the committee supports and I will be able to tell you something else more definitively when we actually see the language. Madam chair, if I could. Perhaps share a process. Like how we're going to do this kind of question. It is very important. To the human services committee that assuming. That we, assuming the support of. The human services committee, that we have the support of the, of the appropriations committee. It's really important to members of human services that they. That it is seen that, that we have ownership. And. The amendment. Which we presented. To you yesterday. We really can't, you can't amend that because it hasn't been offered. So the process would be poor Katie. Is that Katie would be amending. The pieces that are. That were of concern to you. The bill as it came over. To the human services committee. To the human services committee. To the human services committee. To the human services committee. To your committee. And then with the 11 members of the human service committee would put it all together. So in other words, the amendment that you be. Whatever day did it is the one of. Yesterday morning at 1015. That that would sort of disappear. And there would be a new one. So that would be the one of the changes. That changes. Are being addressed right now. So let's, let's sort out. The process piece. Appropriations is in possession of the bill. Because we had some questions. We've been working closely with in human services. We've been working closely with in human services. We've been working closely with in human services. We've been working closely with in human services. With the solution to our questions. We're in possession. And so I'm at a loss as to how. We, unless we hand the bill back to you. How do you amend it? Rather than us amending it. We would be delighted. To get through this. We're still on ownership. Well, no. I talked to the house clerk and she is going to try to put this in writing. This is an awkward way of doing it. Is. The amendment. Which. Katie is now working on language to try to address the questions. to, rather than it amending the version that was titled 3.1 at 10 a.m., she would amend the other one. And we would then come up with a third amendment or whatever it is, which would have, which would be the bill as we present the language that we presented yesterday changed as is changed by the Appropriations Committee amendment, is that making it, basically, I mean, so, may I jump in please? Absolutely. I mean, this is, I absolutely understand and this has been the work of the Human Services Committee. An alternative could be that Appropriations, which has possession, says, we found a need to amend it. And then, Kimberly, as Representative Jessup, as our reporter can say, this was a work of Human Services and turn it back to you in the reporting so that you have, I mean, your members are the ones who are standing on the floor and talking about the value of the bill. And I'm just thinking about how hard this is to do virtually. And I appreciate, and I'm not arguing with you. And if this doesn't work, we will do what we can accommodate what you're asking for. But why not just say, here's the amendment and let you guys report it. I guess I will go back to some sort of members. One, a little history. The child care bill that the housework done last year disappeared. If you go online, it says it died in the Senate because it went into appropriations. And so there's a lot of strong feeling that this will be this will be the Appropriations Committee amendment. And it will not be the amendment of the Human Services Committee. Okay. We're just trying to get the job done. I know. And I'm making it way more complicated in trying to be, trying to be respectful from the, trying to acknowledge the very strong investment and that several members of the committee have in terms of this. And it has as much to do with naming as it does with. Yeah. I appreciate it. So here's our deal. We are out of time to spend time on this. We need, there are appropriations like related questions that we must be engaged on and we must agree to. Yes. I do not believe in and I'm looking to my committee. I do not believe that we really have any stake or interest in having to be the reporter of, of this. I think we all understand your issue. We're just trying to get to the finish line. That's all we're interested in here and we are out of time to figure out how to do that. If you have approval from the powers that be about an alternative way that will work, we're there. We just need to approve the portions of the bill that relate to us and we will take it from there. And we cannot take hours to sort out how to make that happen. Okay. Got it. Got it. And I think we, I think that I see Katie has joined legislative council has joined us. I think she has an amendment related to addressing the questions that you had as that we were directed to make some changes that you had and that the department had. Okay. So I am going to offering an amendment. I didn't understand. Are we offering an amendment now? If you are offering and you would be offering an amendment and the second, can we go over the content of these fourth areas? Okay, maybe it'll become clear. So Katie, Ms. McClendon, can you help us with this? And do we have a copy of this that we received a copy? It should be in your inbox. What you have is probably an unedited draft. I'm locked out of the document right now because the editors have it, but I have I have a version from my email when I sent it out. So I'll share that. Okay. You want to share? Yeah. Thank you. Oh, you don't share documents. Yeah. Okay. I'll just walk you through it then. Hang on. Let us get oriented. So in our emails from Teresa dated at 1143 is a document that you're going to now walk us through. So members, do you have that? Yeah. Okay. People have it. Okay. Thanks, Katie. So okay. So this has several instances of amendment and this is amending the human services amendment, not the committee report there, the amendment. So the first change is in section five, the section five of the human services amendment pertains to the bright futures information system. And I'm sorry. I need to be oriented. So it's amending the human services amendment. Mary, this is the part that will be complicated. You told us to figure out later. Okay. So Katie, if you can not worry about the section and then say the content of it, but in terms of we may have to end up amending what we did. Okay. No problem. So the first change would be with regard to the bright futures information system. And I understand that there was a technology modernization reserve that was created. So in total what the language would read would be in fiscal year 2022, 4.5 million is appropriated to the agency of digital services from the technology modernization reserve for the purpose of completing the implementation of the bright futures information system modernization plan. So it's incorporating that concept of the reserve. And my understanding is that that actually representative felt us that this was something that you worked on and thought was important. Go ahead, Marty. I simply thought it was important to list the bright futures project as part of many projects that this technology reserve is going to fund. And just not to mention the dollar amount in your particular bill because we were already mentioning it someplace else. Your bill could certainly say we are going to proceed with the bright futures in the next year or whatever you choose to say, but you don't need to appropriate the money for it because we have done that elsewhere. Yeah. We have in the budget, we are paying for the bright futures. We've got it covered. So it does not need to be appropriated. And so in, and this is where I'm getting lost. I'm not sure at what draft I'm looking at. If you're looking, Madam Chair, at the draft that you probably worked off yesterday, this would be on page four on line 12. And that's the version draft 3.1. So essentially this is trying to catch up this bill with the action taken last night where we moved the 4.5 million into the reserve. So my suggestion was that we referenced that reserve. I think it's, we don't want to obviously double appropriate, but this was simply referencing the reserve. So yeah. So on the draft that I'm looking at that is dated 317 in section five, it says that we are, that 4.5 million is appropriated. We do not need to say that because we have appropriated it. Am I correct on this committee? Right. We've put it in in the budget. We don't need to say it in two places. So A can be elinated. And so thank you for that effort to solve a problem. Kimberly, are you okay with that? Actually, no, I think that reference to the amount should stay in there. Maybe it doesn't use the verb appropriated. It simply says in fiscal year 2022, maybe a different verb besides appropriated, but it still makes reference. Could it be the verb? And again, I deferred alleged counsel on this. Could it be the verb authorized, although is it already considered authorized if it's in the reserve bill? We are saying that there is $4.5 million for beef us in the in the in the big bill in the budget. We have done that. No, I understand that my my what I'm trying to do is to find a way to reference that action in this bill for those who care about the child care bill so that they can look and see that there's 4.5 million and it lives over here and it's already been appropriated. Is there a way to do that? Funds for completion of the have been I don't know. There you go. Something along that. Yeah, Katie can draft it. We just can't appropriate it here. Got it. Yep. Funds for the the completion of I don't know I don't you need a verb, but it can't be appropriate appropriated. How could he write it could be 4.5 million dollars that is found in the. Yeah, yeah. Ledge council work it. Okay. That's the intent though there just wanted. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. The next concept is amending yesterday we spoke about section 10 which created a working group on the federal money coming in through the American Rescue Plan Act and there have been some changes to that group. First the group has almost been split in two with the initial group focusing on the child care development block grant and yesterday's version building bright futures was the lead and that has been kind of flip flopped so DCF is the leading coordination with building bright futures instead of creating a plan. This group is creating recommendations. And the recommendations are to ensure that the block grant is fully utilized and the same priorities are to be considered. There's no longer language about administrative assistance coming from DCF and yesterday's version had two report backs April 30th and November 30th. This version only has a report back on November 30th. Committee are there any questions I actually there is no is there is this in our jurisdiction even you're describing a group that is going to do work are we paying per diems or doing any of that sort of thing here the per diem language has been removed and it's my understanding from talking to DCF that that is something they can do within their budget. Okay so this is all policy it's describing how work is done okay so thank you I understand that the changes were made in response to questions we were raising so got it but and but technically we have no jurisdiction you've just taken care of the long-term funding kind of questions we have so thank you committee are there any questions on this section I'm not seeing anybody raise a hand so thank you next next is the second half I said that we divided that that work group that we looked at yesterday into two pieces the the second group that's being formed is forming around the childcare stabilization grants coming from the federal act so the lead-in language of this new section is very similar there's a work group being created there the stakeholders participating that group's a little bit narrower it doesn't have the business community and it doesn't have I lost my paper with the other stakeholder we cut but this is for immediate and effect immediate use of the childcare stabilization grants which it's my understanding 50% of that has to be obligated more immediately than the other set of funds so what differs here is that the working group is to make recommendations and once those recommendations are complete the department is distributing those funds accordingly and then there's a report back on September first of this year from the department that would it would go to joint fiscal and it would contain the working group's recommendations and also the department's conforming distribution of funds with those recommendations can you point me to the lines which lines it sends it back to joint fiscal sure I'm looking at the bottom of page four subsection c by September one the department shall submit a written report to jfc containing the work group's recommendations and the department's conforming distribution of funds and just just for my understanding this is just a way of informing jfc is rep you maybe why do we need to know that I mean I would imagine that the policy committees would want to know that but this is my in the bill at in it was a sort of convoluted process to ensure that there was some policy committee influence and it was way too convoluted and it was somewhat whatever and so we have have adjusted it to to one to be very similar to what has happened in the past with the when COVID money comes in if it's off session I mean this group will have two legislate have some legislate two legislators as part of the group and if it's off session to have it come to joint fiscal so the joint I mean so that there isn't there is in fact for both of these groups the legislature it's a it's a marrying or a balancing between us being not letting the department do things in a timely way and so being too being too overly involved to having some uh some oversight okay and I mean it's sort of what it's what it's what it helped me if I'm misunderstanding what you did last year which is they would come and they say this is how we spent the money and jfc said okay makes sense and the the way it was organized last year is that we required and and Peter helped me the but we said that a proposal could be made to joint fiscal and joint fiscal had the authority to say yes or no but that is not what this is doing all this is doing is say tell us what you did if you are asking that joint fiscal approve it I I don't think it says it just says give us a written report and and that was all I was asking is why did jfc gather a written report okay um you know I have to say that um we were still working on the language and uh getting clarity at 1145 yeah so you have raised a very good question and I would I mean speaking for myself I would say yes they would jfc would need to approve but I don't want to say that without because without at least running it by dcf okay and um I you're the interest is this is is money being spent or is this just a proposal for how money will be spent now money I mean this is money might very well be spent so much okay yeah you you you need if if you want some control you need to put a yes or a no you need to have a it it's not just report to us it's it's approved and looking at you peter as a member of joint fiscal no I agree otherwise it's an fyi and it becomes a okay so then what okay um and and this is I'm perhaps putting um legislative council in an awkward position that she can't be in some of the last part of this language was um what was she was the last it was not a three-way conversation yeah I spoke with um dcf and their concern is that the money gets out um quickly so they I had mentioned having some type of approval process and um my sense was that that would slow them up and getting the money out the door so instead um what was discussed was a report so that the legislature would be aware of what the recommendations were and how the money was used if it's not supposed to go to joint fiscal it could maybe go to the policy committees not during off I mean this is off session yeah um you know I well okay let me just say I want to say this is a decision for I think your committee um I would say okay fine have joint fiscal approval if that's if that's what happened last year as money was being expended and you figure and joint fiscal was able to respond expeditiously um then um then I think that that's a a good um a good process to continue and if it really is is troublesome this is the beginning of a journey okay so um the interest is in having a yes or a no on this so know that if if the no is there that it delays sending money out but if that's what what you want to accomplish that can be handled that way um what what you're trying to do is to have some sort of oversight of what the working group comes up with correct and the oversight is the joint fiscal committee which can say yes or no and what and some of it is to model it over what happened last time and what I understand last time is that they had to come to joint fiscal um and that there were timeframes that they had to meet and yeah so you need to you you then then there needs to be an action that is taken I think Katie understands that so we can move on I suspect Mary thank you yeah Peter so when um when Anne used the word expedited that was exactly what I was thinking um instead of saying it you know joint fiscal committee process request an expedited decision from the joint fiscal committee um forcing us to you know do a quick meeting uh to make that determination yeah because we don't yeah we don't need otherwise we'd meet in July and September and November so okay um yeah yes you're the chair yeah I am the chair you are the chair you are yeah yeah um so how about we submit a plan for joint fiscal's review and approval that plan is also submitted to the chairs of whatever policy committees are and if we fail to act within x days of receiving the plan it is approved I think we've used five days something like that in the past yeah um at the normal if we get it you know we get it we're asked if we approve we do um a kind of a uh uh there is a poll that is taken among members if we approve grant this is the grant process if we approve it it's approved if it's not we can have a meeting so if we could set up something like that does grant acceptance process no that's a that's a good idea on an expedited basis with five days time frame yeah Katie does that track with you that's fine yeah um so copy's going to jfc it's going to the chairs you'll have five days to approve if you don't take action in five days it's considered approved if you choose not to approve it you automatically set up a meeting yeah okay does that work for you rep you that gets you the oversight um it does and I saw that representative Bagan had his thumb up so and so I was looking to okay um so the fourth set uh proposal of amendment so in the draft we looked at yesterday there was language if you remember about um kind of a process in place for when to use federal funds and when to determine um that general funds are more appropriate so um the proposal is to remove that language and that um this new section be added to the bill that would apply to all um funding in the bill and this is I guess language you've used in other bills um but that to the extent appropriations and the actor made from federal funds including state holding funds established as a result of the federal act the commissioner finance and management is authorized to make expenditures in anticipation of receipts necessary and the event money is received by the state under the federal act cannot be used for their designated purpose then appropriations will be made from the general fund and the appropriations in the act from funds provided in the federal act carry forward from fiscal year 2021 until expended so this one does belong to us so committee look at this closely um peter can we make a one word change and instead of shall be used from the general fund say may be used from the general fund otherwise we are potentially committing the general fund to a heck of a hit well remember this is just for those um you need to read this with the um the language of the bill all this is doing is talking about the um um scholarship money it's 300,000 300,500,000 1.8 yeah we had agreed to do our rent we were assuming we were doing that out of gf okay we were hoping that the arca would cover it that's all we're trying to do is to send it to arca first and then have the gf back us up that's fine i you know just reading the amendment i thought it was the entire stabilization grants and everything else no no it's just the workforce development training okay no i'm good thanks and that was my um that was my question too and i realized i'm now looking at a different amendment it was my understanding that um that this change i'm so sorry that this change um has nothing to do has only has something to do with uh workforce not with any other pieces of the bill i'll be right back sorry okay so this was at my request that we do this um we there was some different kind of tortured language before and i asked for this and i think it accomplishes what we wanted to do and then the fifth instance um miss mclean um we're changing the effective dates so that the new section added section 11 that is kind of the second part of the two-part working group on um federal funds coming that's a new section so that would also take effect on passage since that work is beginning right away okay committee any questions on that it's pretty straightforward i think okay um we don't have anything to vote on so we're going to have to wait to see what is produced and to understand how this goes together um i i had planned on this taking the most a half an hour we've spent an hour on this and we need more time i i just want to request that that uh we need to limit the amount of time that we're spending on this we are out of time to work on this draft um the committee has to turn to the budget now so i'm you know let you let you guys go off and um rep q1 and q and i talk offline about what the strategy is for managing this on the floor rather than taking committee yeah but um we just it we're out of time to work on this today so i know we have to vote it out so please figure out how to make it simple and fast for us so we'll do yeah okay uh katie thank you very much for helping us understand and i'm i'm sorry i i'm feeling like i'm sounding person and patient and um we're i'm just things are piling up here as they are with all of you so thank you for your help and understanding this so um we'll let you guys go and do your work and we'll talk about it um when it's ready for the committee to consider um so thank you okay um all right folks um dav are we ready to talk about the Medicaid bill are we there yet do we have language h 153 committee i i am oh am i muted if you can't hear me davis muted oh i apologize i i have something from jen i was going to send it to teresa and ask her to distribute it how's that does that work okay yes let's do that okay have we voted we have not oh we need an amendment on the health equity right we're waiting for that katie's uh we asked katie to do that yeah poor thing she's off doing other stuff okay so just well well so that is going out and coming back to us so that we can look at h 153 for people's information what we have that we are going to consider today the only bills we are considering today are h 153 h 159 h 171 and h 210 so the Medicaid reimbursement the commerce bill the child care bill and the health equity bill those are the only bills we are considering today the plan was we were done with them by now but so much for that plan i know that we are in your lunchtime so um we should have we do have um the draft on h 153 of a proposed amendment can you walk us through it dav are you yes i'd be glad to so um what we're doing in section two we're deleting where it says the secretary of services shall establish we're deleting the word establish and saying the secretary of human services shall determine payment rates so there's a difference there you're not right he's he will calculate he will determine the payment rates um and when determining moves on now it's line 17 says when determining these rates the secretary shall adjust the rate amounts to take into account the fall to include the following then that gets into what's guiding the secretary is that it's a reasonable cost of the providers any government mandates we haven't changed that it's the same thing that was in the bill then it moves on and it says again it deletes the word establishing and replaces it with determining reasonable and adequate it's governing the rates and then moves on and says the secretary um uh again deleting the word establish and saying well determine determining payment rates for our recommendation then it then it goes on and this is new language here i'm going to read it to you the secretary shall determine payment rates for providers of home and community-based services in accordance with this section at least annually and shall report these rates and the amounts necessary to fund them to the house committee on appropriations and human services and healthcare and then um also menace mentions the senate yeah so they haven't established the rates but they've determined uh what they should be and they tell us what they are so as legislators you would know that it's not automatic it's not mandatory but if you want the providers in the home and community-based services to get reasonable rates to care for the populations they serve here's what it would cause and then it moves on um says that i just deletes that that the secretary has responsibility for establishing rates and in search determine for determining throughout the rest of the document and i'll let peter jump in if i misinterpreted anything no you didn't this was um you know this was a really good compromise on the part of of all and um it does what i need to do with it it's going to require we will get information every every year to to make a determination on i have no problem as i said making hard decisions i just have a problem when somebody tells me what i'm going to do yeah and i think it's a good compromise so we don't have a negative vote that was why i didn't want this to be reported adversely we just yeah yeah we we may regret asking this question because we're going to see how underfunded these entities are um but that's our job so i'm i'm comfortable uh so thank you for doing this work committee do you have any other questions jen is sending it i'm sorry i didn't mean to jump him out being recognized i think jen is sending it to the editors so it will come back to us camera ready to make uh to vote on okay do we do committee do you want to wait or can we vote on this as we have it i think people would like to vote made are you okay with that let's let's go on it and with the understanding if there's a change we can take it back um uh so i've got move to amend h 153 with draft 1.2 language which is what it is correct draft 1.2 yes okay is somebody moving it would someone care to move that i i would i will make the motion to move and i will second okay we're good are we ready for me to call the roll please okay moving to amend h 153 with draft 1.2 language representative fagan yes representative feltas yes representative harrison yes representative helm yes representative jessup oh she's off with well uh representative shy yes representative squirrel yes representative to lino not with us yeah uh representative towns and yes representative yakovoni yes and representative hooper yes okay now i'm ready if there's someone to make this motion move to move to approve h 153 as amended by house human services and further amended by house appropriations so moved second okay doki okay chair are we ready yes please okay um representative fagan yes representative feltas yes representative harrison yes representative helm yes representative jessup representative shy yes representative squirrel yes representative Tolino representative Townsend yes representative Yacoboni yes representative Hooper yes and we'll hold this open madam chair till people come back yes please okay so remaining in terms of bills now are the commerce bill in Tristan's out working on that the child care bill Kimberley's out working on that and we're simply waiting for an amendment on the health care equity bill in the core blood council is working on the child care bill and she'll get to us I'm sure as soon as she can and I don't think we can act that that one has changed I think a knot that we probably ought to see the draft yeah yeah hey Maria so yeah hi wondering how you guys are doing in terms of having something from the budget for us to look I'm not pressuring I'm just wondering about timing when you think we'll have this Steve okay so Mary are you guys interested in going off and having lunch I think we should really want to I would like you to have lunch too I just want to tell them when to come back okay so how about I've got Steve on the phone so how about we say 130 is that okay Steve 130 so Steve and I are just like doing some last-minute check you know so can we have till 130 is that good or absolutely okay and you know what why don't you take until two committee we will get back together at 130 in the hopes that we have another bill to move and we'll do that and then we'll turn to the budget okay so let's take