 Okay. All right. Well, so as the house chair, I was going to be in the meeting. Yes. And Senator Benning has something that he likes to talk about because he has a lead, right? So we'll start with that. Yes. So let me just back up for those of you that don't know me, I'm Joe Benning. I represent Caledonia County. Prior to my election as the state senator, I was the chair of the United States Commission. When I became a state senator, I had the opportunity to start with the sexual harassment policy in the Senate. And I was appointed the chair of that committee to begin to look at a discussion about what kinds of changes should be looked at. The first glaring error that I noticed was we were in independent silos. The House had its sexual harassment policy and the Senate had its sexual harassment policy. The trouble with each one was the perpetrators and the victims were all in those individual silos. So there was a gaping hole. For instance, if a newscaster in this building and a lobbyist were in the roles of alleged perpetrator and alleged victim, they had no place to go. The reason that I've been asked to have this conversation with you from the Senate side is that we ought to be talking long term about trying to develop a system where any person walking in this building can be walking into a building where it is not a hostile work environment. And the nutshell is that that would require us to consider having some place where an intake process was made, depending on who the individual was that was coming in with the complaint, that it would be a universal place for that to happen if at all possible. There are many reasons why the House should retain jurisdiction over House members who are alleged to be perpetrators and the Senate should do likewise. But the intake process is what I'm asking that we take a harder look at on a long term basis. It all boils down to whether or not you come into this building, it doesn't matter who you are, is there a place you can go to have a complaint raised. So for instance, if Janet was to suddenly hear from the newscaster that they were being hit upon by a lobbyist, at the moment we don't have any place for there to be a hearing to determine whether that's something that needs to have a remedy. If somebody in Luke's office was to make that complaint, Luke has a place for that remedy to happen. We each in the Senate and the House have a place for that remedy to happen. But there are still gaping holes in the building that need to be addressed and on a long term basis that's a process at least from the Senate side that we've been talking about should be something that we looked at. In Mitzi, I heard you when you were initially in a news interview, you were hitting the nail right on the head by saying, we have to look at this from a global perspective. This building has a lot of people in it. And while there are constitutional issues with whether or not you and the House retain control over House members and we in the Senate retain control over Senators, there are still other people that need to have needs met and they're not being met. And it is wise for us if we're having these conversations to begin the process of looking at that from a global perspective. So, sexual harassment policies are for general departments, for employers, for their employees, we're still right. So, policy, the House or the Senate probably wouldn't be the appropriate mechanism for what you're proposing would probably be an amended joint rule regarding the behavior of persons in attendance and in the state. I want to make sure that I don't get lost in the sauce conversation. There should always be a Senate policy and a House policy and whatever policies are incredible for employer employee discussions. What I'm talking about is an intake process that will divert those people into a given silo if that's where it goes or into a place we don't presently have that's not covered. For instance, a moose caster at Lomis, where would they go to mediate their problem? Where would they go if there was something that rose to the level of sexual harassment to have some kind of remedy presented so that we've got something that is fair? Janet could essentially say person X, you're no longer welcome in the building, but how does person X actually have the ability to come in and have a hearing to determine whether or not they should be excluded from the building? And that's what I'm trying to get at, and we need to start thinking under a wider umbrella than we have right now. And it's not just Joe thinking that, that was really the sense of the whole Senate. Yes. Really? Sorry, I thought this started at 12.10 and Senate Economic Development just ended 9.00. Our current policy has a representative, Senator, staff, many of us are limited public. They're responding, complaining about any person employed by general fiscal office, opposite legislative council, where Senator Norris would go to a joint panel, House and Senate panel. I don't know whether that addresses that issue or not. I haven't got to this point with legislative council, but I think when you get to the remedy stage. What greater responsibility would a member of the public on that panel have to talk about whether a senator should be expelled or suspended? I think there's a constitutional issue there that needs to be looked at. But the intake process, really the other end of the conversation, the intake process might very well be in place. Your example of what that body is, that's, in my eyes, that's a perfect place for an intake. The question is what happens after the intake? Does it go through an individual's silo for remedy purposes? Because it's not a problem for senators. We've had this situation, I don't know whether you have or not, but when a senator makes an allegation about another senator, we have a panel that can sit and, number one, find out internally. Does this actually rise to the level of sexual harassment? Or is this something that we can have an informal discussion on and try to resolve whatever differences there are? I think that has to remain within the Senate's purview in the House bill. It's a House bill. But I don't like to question whether or not an outside individual should be part of that remedy process. And we have talked about this intake, really filtering out some gray areas, because we all acknowledge there's a lot of gray area. And the building doesn't... Yeah, I mean, we interact with so many different people, many of whom are non-legislative colleagues, many of whom are all different aspects of state house colleagues, that it makes some sense to have an initial process where you are weighing the gray areas, deciding what action needs to be taken and then sending it to the appropriate committee, or actually dealing with it and dismissing it. And if it doesn't rise to the level of sexual harassment, dealing with it and dismissing it. I think that one of the things that we talked about and I think, Joe, to this is that I'm looking at your new policy because I really liked it. I thought it addressed some... Yes. But... You're looking at the... At the new policy. The new one. Yes. Because I don't really care how it relates to the old one because you're dealing with the new one. So, what it says, it's intended to protect legislators, all these people, who experience sexual harassment attributable to regulated individuals. And in this case, the regulated individuals are the House members, the Senate members, or our staffs. And I think that one of the problems is, Joe, and I don't know if we even have any jurisdiction in it, but that is the issue. But how do we deal with it? We probably can't take any sanctions against it, but how do we deal with it if it's a member of the press creating a really hostile environment here for a lobbyist, or a lobbyist creating... They aren't regulating individuals, but it does create some kind of a hostile environment. And I think that that's... Or if they're hitting upon one of us. But they are regulated in a sense, because they are given permission to function in this building by the Secretary of State and Jan, and the Sergeant and R. So, I think the point there, or I'll take it on my part here, I think that's a... I think being able to clearly state that while we may have some fuzzy areas about how much jurisdiction we have over a lobbyist or a news reporter or something like that, I think if the goal is to make sure that this is a building where everybody is welcome and can safely work and function, then I think, you know, I think at least being able to say, I don't know if the lawyers here feel like there's any problem with somebody... With us saying that we've retained the right to sanction somebody's ability to work in the building. Not to do their job, but to be in the building. So the question is, are there... I'm actually going to ask you this question. Do we have procedures and guidelines around sexual harassment that are given to advocates and others who come into the building and work with senators or house members? In answer to your question, I don't think I've ever given written guidance or verbal guidance to an advocate. Would it be helpful if we go over the second paragraph in the new draft you had, which talks about overregulating individuals and also who's protecting it's separate from the intake idea, but it catches on to some of the comments or how we're going to proceed. That sounds good, yeah. So this is... I saw a couple of preliminary comments mostly for the senators. Just very quickly, this is a clean copy so it doesn't have the strikeouts or underlines. So it's harder to tell what's new. It's just that it got so confusing so we did a clean copy. And you all should have a copy that on the top says version 7 on the very top and the header. And we have some copies if you want paper copies of that. This document says version 7 and top January 24th. Yeah, B7, Jetbird. So for the house members it's the same text that you saw previously. We just were able to finally address some of the formatting. If you look at the second paragraph on the first page, it says... It's not, sorry, it's a little... Negative. It's this document. It's the one that calls itself. And what that is is a side-by-side to help you so we can look at both. But we'll be talking about the actual policy. There's like a hard copy we have in here. She's got it. You don't know too well. I'd love to. Great. Could you just... I have it, right? Oh, you do? Yes. Oh, okay. It looks different than the draft. It just says January 22nd. You wouldn't know if... You wouldn't know if... You wouldn't know if... You wouldn't know if... You wouldn't know if... You wouldn't know if... You wouldn't know if... You wouldn't know if... We have to do the... That's from the up here. So, it's a bit of care. Okay. So, Alice Vence, I think we're all set now. Great. Thank you. So, if you look at the first page, second paragraph, let me read it to you very quickly and then we'll go back over it, it says, this policy for provincial sexual harassment policy sets standards, concern in, regulates the conduct of representatives and persons employed by the speaker in the House Clerk's office regulate individuals. So that's the term that was mentioned earlier. These are the people whose conduct is governed by this policy and sets forth the procedures of the panel. This policy is intended to protect legislators, it means both representatives and senators, employees of all staff offices, legislative pages and interns and members of the public, including, which of course as you know means not limited to, lobbyists, advocates and members of the press who experience sexual harassment attributable to regulated individuals. And then there's a paragraph that's, I'm sorry, the sentence that says that members of joint offices such as Fletcher Council, JFO are governed by the joint panel. So anyone who comes into the building who is harassed by a regulated individual would be protected by this policy because it's just the house policy, those regulated individuals are only representatives and employees of the clerk and speaker's offices. The reason why it only regulates the behavior of and sets the standards concerning the behavior of representatives and regulated individuals is because it's a house policy. They can only govern the behavior of members of the house or employees thereof. So it doesn't, the intake is a separate idea but some of the comments seem to go to who was governed and why, that's one of the things. If we were to have the same policies or a joint policy, then I'm hearing some interest here in doing something that would, that would set a standard for everybody's behavior. Correct. I think that, I think, maybe we can talk about Molly. Yeah, I think that we can't regulate in the same sense the behavior of those other people because we, but we can regulate them in the sense that they have, we can tell them they can't be in the state house, they can't have access to the state house anymore. We can't, we, we can't, I don't believe, say they, we're going to have a hearing on them about sexual harassment against somebody. I don't know, I think this is an area where Janet is the only person who could tell them they couldn't come in here. Okay. If Janet has the power to exclude someone from the building, inherent in that idea is that there should be a process for how that happens and so if we can extend the definition of regulated persons to anybody who is walking into the building, you should be able to develop a process by which someone who is not traditionally considered under these policies has a place to go to have a hearing or has a place to go to defend themselves in the event they are accused to be perpetrator. But the ultimate question is does Janet have the power to bar someone from the building? If the answer to that is yes, then I submit we have at least a path to get to incorporating another group of potentially regulated individuals that we do not cover now. Exactly. And can we do that? Of course for lawmakers, remember always you can do anything. Well I just wanted to reference your current joint rules of the two chambers. There's section 26 of those joint rules which are regarding public conduct in the state house. And it currently says under subsection A that persons in the state house shall refrain from any conduct which creates a risk of harm to any person or which would disrupt essential government operations. And in that same section it provides that the sergeant of arms has a general supervision over the conduct of the public within the state house building and has the authority if necessary to take measures to prevent disruption of essential government operations. So to address your concern, Senator Benning, I think it's possible to set up some sort of system to address the non-regulated individuals in either the house or senate policies through something like a joint panel of both chambers. Yeah, so we can reach them. Well, but the implication of this rule and of that comment is that it would be, I would think that we may be opening Pandora's box in terms of the type of information that the sergeant of arms needs to provide in making decisions about how individuals are treated based on the behavior. So would we have to have a whole set of guidelines or decision making treaty for Janet to determine how someone should be treated? Do we lead it like this or do we open it up to a more formal set of rules or guidelines? I'm sorry, but I have to make sure. Your question is 100% valid. My suggestion is on a long term basis that we begin the process of building the exact same remedial framework that exists in our current policies on a more global policy so that Janet just doesn't simply say, you're out of here. Somebody has to have a hearing in a neutral setting to determine whether or not there has been sexual harassment or whether there's a shortcut to get the people together to get back to what Betsy Ann has just told us is inherent in Janet's powers to do. But that's the idea behind this is to talk about a more global intake and remedial process that mirrors what we have now in individual silos. So our question is, excuse me, sorry, go ahead. What I'm hearing is I think that there's pretty good agreement that we have potentially three people, three groups. And what we're trying to do is just sort it. And if it's a rep that goes to the rep group, if it's the senator that goes to the Senate group, and if it is none of those but happens when they're building, we just need to create a third entity. And I'm just wondering if we can sort of come to agreement that we need to create a third entity and then we need to talk in addition to what that third entity will look like. Jenny, did you want to? Well, I was just thinking that it sounds like then we're asking the sergeant of arms to have a whole sexual harassment policy and an intake process. And I'm just thinking about in a practical sense of what that would mean for a public hearing number of people. I understand it's only sexual harassment but there are other behaviors that then we might rise to the question of shouldn't we have a policy for the sergeant of arms to determine whether or not the behavior is her behavior is appropriate and excluding someone from the building. I think Allison, worried about Pandora's box. We have Pandora's box. I mean it's out there now. I would really support us thinking, first of all, I thought for a long time about the global aspect of most of our work here and how poorly it's managed because it's all managed in silos. And I really think we have to get to understanding that the building is fluid and there aren't silos in behavior. They happen, it knows no rank or a colleague ship or anything else. I really feel that this is an idea we'd love to have you start to think about. It's not anything we have to take action on today. I think that what we were hoping for today is that you begin to think about an initial process that screens where things go, if it rises to the level of sending it to the centering regulated individual senator house, but really have an initial flow of first review and then just sending it to the right bodies. But it really goes to this whole looking at the building more globally and we'd like to have you begin to think about that because I think we're very interested. I hate to say this, but I don't think that we actually came to that decision in the Senate. In our committee, we talked about that, but I don't think we ever said we all agree that there should be this global intake thing. That was a proposal that was proposed. We started talking about it, but I'm not sure that I'm there. So I don't know that we agreed with that as a group. So my suggestion here is that this issue of people in the state house, I think as Kate said, goes beyond sexual harassment. And maybe what needs to happen is that Janet needs to have some kind of guidelines for how she deals with people who are in the state house, who are disrupted in any way. And she might have those guidelines already. I mean, how does she right now decide whether Brian Pearl should be banned from the state house or whether he can sit there and glare at us? So I think that we, I don't know that we need a separate policy or a separate intake form or anything for Janet to be around sexual harassment. She needs to figure out when people should be banned from the state house. And that's a pretty... But do people know what to do? So they know what the expectations are here and what they can't do. I just want to kind of help with the Senate position. They've answered a lot about what do we do with that third area? And one of the concerns was should we have a separate intake or should we not have a separate intake? But I also want to give you a couple of other ideas that they've discussed. One of them was the power structure. And so the way that the current committees have set up is representatives and senators. And if you're somebody from the public or you're somebody from elsewhere, do you really feel comfortable going to a senator or a member of the council? They may have facilitators, but they're all lawyers. I mean, would you feel comfortable if you were in there? So the idea of doing sort of an intake was is there a way of making people find somebody who's comfortable to go talk to? There are a lot of, Senator White would say downsides to it because you can't get the panelists too big. Is it just to help people intake? I mean, is it screening before it pushes it off? But the idea of at least one part of the overall panel was to try to make those victims of some sort of sexual harassment feel comfortable enough to know where their options are and where to go. And there was at least a feeling that even if you didn't set up a separate panel or whatever that the current dynamics are not probably perfect for everybody. And so in that sense, they were discussing how do we accommodate that. And so I want to make sure that the House of Members, I don't think that would articulate yet as an issue. Thank you. This actually hits on something that we talked about as well because we had had a conversation about wanting some sort of system so that anybody would feel comfortable coming forward. But we were discussing it from putting members of the public or staff members or what not on the panel. And we were running into all kinds of roadblocks with how to do that in the structure. But this idea of having not necessarily a separate intake panel, but maybe having a diverse group of intake officers who could be any member of the panel of either House or Senate panel. But also maybe we could have, maybe this gets around the lawyer question too, maybe we could have intake officers who were a member from the Ledge Council, a member from Sergeant and Arms, or maybe even, dare I say, a lobbyist nominated. Who are simply an intake officer for somebody to come to and those people, their main job would just be absolutely no hearing decision, investigation of any kind. But simply explaining the process to say, okay, great, that's your complaint, then this is the person you have to go to. And so that person, their main job would just be to say, here are your options, either a formal written complaint or we created this process of an informal complaint. And your problem is with Mitzi Johnson, then you need to go to the House panel. Your problem is with Allison Clarkson, you need to go to the Senate panel, your problem is with so and so, then we need to have the joint panel meet. The sorting hand, thank you. The Senate's discussion was, it's the privacy. So there was an attention to make sure you, I didn't want to have that, because the privacy is easy. If it's the senator who's to help them do the screening, if they violate the privacy, the Senate sent you. The House member violates it, it's taking the sanction by the House. And one of the things that the Senate is discussing is that really, those who are pregnant complaints should drive the process to the way they feel most comfortable. And you have people from the public, how do you force the privacy if they violate it? And so if you do that panel, we, I don't think they came up with the answer last week when they were discussing it. But I know that's an issue as to how do you make sure that the lobbyist who's on this panel who's been talked to doesn't go out and start talking. How do you make sure that they're still private? That's what we spoke about. That was the reason why I was against having, because we don't have any jurisdiction over them. Really, truly, they can go out and say whatever they want. So, I don't know. I mean, I don't know if Janet's ever had any complaints. I would ask Janet if she would have any complaints. We've just been using the House or the Senate when it said we have an interim and we gave them the policy to read. But we definitely haven't done it. So, just a minute. I think if there was something that was created, she would need to go to joint rule and get an input. And there were probably, just like when we had our Senator from Franklin, when we didn't have all these policies, we'd have a rules committee that establishes the procedures. And I would think that Janet would probably consult with myself. I would pledge counsel to figure out what she should do. And my advice to her would be to go to joint rules and where she excludes someone, go through some kind of process. But there should be something I think more formal than Senator Lyons' saying, so people know what the process is. But it would be created if something came up. Could I just ask about the criminal aspect of it? Or did we go beyond just the harassment clause? Would it be a criminal thing that the Capitol Police would do? So, I guess those issues are... Oh, yes, Janet. So, I, on page three of your new policy, I really liked this informally contacting a member of the panel. And if you combine that with Mitzi's idea of just having, whether you want to call them ambassadors or what you want to call them, that anybody can go to to file a complaint. And then you say, well, but so that people know kind of where you can go. You can go to this person, you can go to that person, you can go to the sergeant in that arms, you could go to Ledge Counsel. Combining that with this might be... Then the question would be, who would be on that? Who would be a part of that? Right, and you could go to any one of those kind of things. Yeah, first of all, you could go to anyone of those people. It might be Jen and Janet and any one of the panel members. I don't know, but I think that we don't need to create a... If I were a complainant and I thought I had to go to it through an intake form that involved the House and the Senate panels and some people from Ledge Counsel, there's no way I would even pursue it, because 16 people... We never talked about 16 people. We talked about a very small group that would just be the first screening for all complaints, no matter where they came from. But it makes some sense for the sergeant in arms to develop a policy, to build on a policy. And she would be the point of the other initial complaint. But this was really an idea for us to start thinking about not necessarily to take action on today. We talked about this, and we didn't make any decisions. But first, as a start, we need to align House and Senate policies. Exactly, and that's to our second point today, and take it away from her. I think we need to just have to take an agreement that how did the Senate build up in the House policy? I actually like it, and I particularly like this section about the informal late contacting a member of the panel and the procedure from there. There were a couple of public things here that I wasn't quite sure when you get to page 5, whether public is still on resolve. I wasn't sure what that meant. Actually, there were some questions that we didn't answer. I was wondering what would be made public, and I think he has thoughts about that. Yeah, so this is just a draft, and when we hit these sort of major questions about the public, our general thought process was if we were getting to a place where we may have actually adopted the same policy and have a uniform policy for the House and Senate, then some of these big questions we wanted to resolve with you. So if you look on page 5, we have a small eye at the top is if the panel believes there are no reasonable grounds that a violation was committed, small two, small eye, two eye, whatever, in the middle of the page. If the panel believes that there are reasonable grounds, there were three courses of action the panel could take. One was a written warning to respondents, and we had chatted about, rather than having just a brief letter having a meeting with each person so that there would be resolution and that there would be a little more finale there. And then enter into the mutual agreement upon resolution is number two, or draft charges and Senate matter for the hearing. In the number one, we were wondering what is public, and I'm sorry, I'm supposed to be the presser upstairs on sexual harassment. And so the concept here, some other people can take it away too, the concept here that I thought of afterwards was saying the part that shall be public is not any names, but a summary of the action that happened. Because in that way, the press is going to, if we give any information to the press, it's going to be who is it, what did they do. And by just being able to say it was an issue of somebody calling somebody hun a lot, it just deflates the press quite a bit. And I think it holds the panel accountable to using one for just lower level actions and using two and three for more increases. So I've got to run. Can we agree on that? I think it should not be public at all. I think there should be, that the only thing that should be made public is some kind of aggregated report at the end of the year or at the end of the session. Because if you, if you don't say any names, but you say, well, this was a house member calling a senator hun too many times. Believe me, it's not going to be 20 minutes before everybody knows who those people were. So I don't think this should be public at all. What about saying something like someone called somebody by, you know, terminated or something, and you don't have to say it was a house member, you just say, we dealt with it. Right, but I would like to see that as an aggregate at the end as opposed to making it public every time there's some kind of resolution. I think that we do the same thing with hospitals. We have aggregate reports. We don't have individual reports of incidences. That's my preference. In an ideal world, there's no press even knowing there's an issue because it's handled in a confidential, private way all the way through. Unless the complaint is public and goes to the press initially, we managed to do most of what the Senate did last year with very little press attention. And I think we could manage it. Until the aggregate report. Yes. And I think there's still a concern about the transparency issues, what has sort of generated a lot of conversation this year. I think it's a really important discussion that we have to resolve. It is an issue that we're about. Okay. So if the press comes to Mr. Tim and says, I hear there's an allegation, or I heard there was an allegation. Are they able to say there was and we resolved it by mutually agreed upon resolution? Not what it was. Not when there was language or touch here or whatever. Just there was. We resolved it by an agreement of resolution with the respondent. I think that's great. I don't know if your policy said that, but I know that the speaker and the provident town don't necessarily know what the complaint is. So the private station, with the way you were disclosing it, I'm not sure whether it was currently not. It should go to the chair of the panel. The question from the press, it should go to the chair of the panel because in our case, the president pro temp never knew what the case was or who was involved or anything. So. Right. The question is then, does that come out in a report at the end of the year? Or does that, do we say at the time something happened? You know, you want, I don't think how does everybody feel about that? That's my end of the year. An aggregate at the end of the year. I thought you proposed. That's what I proposed. Yeah. I have a bit of a difference on that. I think maybe in order to hear transparent and in order to not come to the accused of covering things up, I think it's wise to say there was a complaint and I got resolved. And I think that the chairs of the panels can do that. But I think it would also, you know, and I agree, I think we can do that as in real time. But I think that it would be helpful at the end of the year to have an aggregate. So we're talking about both individual incident happened. I would do both. We would go to the press and say. We wouldn't go to the press. It's a press conference. I don't think we have any obligations. So the press comes and you say, yes, we dealt with it and it was very low level. And there will also be a report of all the different incidents that happened at the end of the year, something like that. I wouldn't volunteer anything. I would just say it was exactly what Cain said. If the press comes to you, you say it was resolved. It was resolved. That's the end of the conversation. And it has not been resolved. You can say it's ongoing. And it's well done. Right. But I think you don't have to compare it to offer anything. I'm sorry. How do you compare it to ethics? I don't know. We play an ethical argument. How do you handle the transparency or notice? You do have a house rule on ethics and both in the house rule regarding ethics and sexual harassment at the end of the year, there is a report about the number of complaints filed, disposition of those complaints, and in the case of ethics requests for ethical advice. But no identity. And no identity. And no identity. All right. If you agree, then that would be the case. But if the press came, you would give out minimal information. It was resolved. It's ongoing. That's all I would share. I don't know if you did say nothing happened. We would say it's the same argument. You will be publishing it in our end of the year report. Patty, what did you say that it's resolved or it's ongoing? And that's it. Yeah. Yeah. That's all I have to say. Resolving. Okay. We don't want to offer anything based on what we said. We should check with Ms. Hayden to see how she feels about that. What was your decision? Well, I think the decision of the year was that we would just say the aggregate at the end of the year and then just say where your question from the press would be saying. It would be directed to the chairs of the panel. And they would either say it's been resolved or it's ongoing. Right. So if they asked me, I'm not going to say a word. I'm going to refer them to back up. That's what we said. I'm not going to refer them to my own realities. And they say we're going to resolve them or not. Well, we should just check with Ms. Hayden to see how she feels about that. I think, yeah. So I'm just trying to vision how that's going to work for you. So I come to you and I say, I hear Senator X has been harassing this lobbyist. Has there been a formal complaint? And is that when you're going to respond? Because you've now violated the victim. Well, I think we can just say we're not at liberty to talk about it. So then how am I going to know it's a press that I should come and ask you? You may want to think through how that's going to play out. Because you're going to be acknowledging there's one and there is somebody who may be the complaint. And they may not, if there's someone tagged, they may not want to be tagged. You mean if they asked about a specific case? So what if the press is going to come up every week and say, are there any cases pending? That's what I would do if I was a pressed person. Otherwise, that's a good thing. Because the policy right now says that you need to keep confidential any information I've obtained. Any information. Okay, good. I think you may want to run through some scenarios. We need to continue the thing about that. Because if it's any information, then we would not even have a report at the end. Well, you can build into this. Right. Any information except for an aggregator report at the end. So maybe we should weigh that for a week. And reconvene next week. Maybe not a week. So, yeah. That's what Thomas is getting to be. It's kind of what? So, I think the question that's on the table is, does the Senate want to go along with the, what the House has done? With a few lingering questions. I think that's what we need again. I think that this first draft is terrific. And I would hope that we would end up adopting the same policy. But I think there are some additional questions. We need to talk about ourselves first and then maybe meet together. So, because it doesn't have the strike out and the underlining like you see in the bill. I mean, I'm sure you catch most of the changes. It would help to go through and talk about some of the issues that were discussed but not resolved or some of the nuances in this were available if you wish to have that. And just to be clear, we have some questions we raise that weren't resolved. And as we go through it, we have further questions about the procedure of the hearing, for example, that we're still wrestling with. So, I wouldn't say this is a final thought. Clearly not. But I think I'm hopeful that we will get to a point where we have adopted a unified policy for both of us. I just want to make sure that you're aware of the Senate rules and how a change in our policy will occur because it may be different than the Senate. Our current rule of sexual harassment goes back to 1997, which is, you know, but then we both did, you guys, both chambers did ethics relatively recently. Our procedure by rule is actually adopted by the rules committee. It doesn't go on the floor the way the rule is currently drafted. We have an ethics rule which is different. So when you ask sort of how is the process on the Senate side, may not be what you're expecting. I don't know what the process on the House side is on how you would change your procedure, whether it's your panel that adopts it, or whether it's your full chamber. When we did ethics, we did the whole chamber, the procedure. And so I just want to make sure that you understand the distinction because our section of harassment rule as currently drafted could be changed as our rules committee adopt the procedure on sexual harassment. After we adopt it as a panel, we can go forward. You guys are going forward, but I also do that just because, as you kind of said, the conference committee, you may get locked in by these members, but there may be something else. In our brief time we have left, do you want to just identify the additional areas you're wrestling with? Why don't we do that when we meet separately? I think some of those areas are already highlighting our documents. Most of them are from confidentiality. Did you want to say anything? We have to be on the board. I guess what we'll have to do is decide on it. So then why don't we meet to discuss it among ourselves next week? We meet together again. And see if we can both, if you're still wrestling with how to resolve some of these questions. And I think we made some progress on the policy. And we agreed to have a common policy. And we agreed to basically leave it real.