 Well, welcome, everybody. This is Wednesday, August 26th. And it's a general housing and military affairs committee meeting. Today we're going to be focusing on, we're going to unmute. There we go. If you can mute yourselves. I just muted Ken Greg, but if you guys can mute. So this general housing and military affairs committee today, we're going to be discussing some military issues. This is our opportunity to get work done on several different guard issues that have popped up since we last talked to the guard. So today, we may not get to them all today. And for the topics that we don't get to, we will have guard back to discuss the topics at hand. So today, we're going to focus on the primary focus. And if we have more time, we'll go to the others. The primary focus today will be on the guard scholarship program. There is an issue related to COVID where guard scholarship recipients aren't able to, based on what we wrote, they're not really qualifying for the scholarship because they can't go to basic training. And so there's a desire on many of our parts to try to represent a Fagan who's been working with the attorney, Jim Demeray, and with the guard on language that sort of allows for an end around during the crisis so that students who do qualify for the guard scholarship can receive the money and still they'll have to still fulfill their basic training requirements. But the general will talk more about that and then start filling us in on the deployment, which is upon us. And so we just wanted to get an idea of that and what the status was with that. So with that, before we get into testimony, does anybody have anything they need to share with us? I know that some of us need to duck off for a little while. And that's fine. Duck off the call and then just come back when you're ready. But if anyone else has anything to share right this minute, then I'm going to pass the microphone right over to General Knight and have him. I think I'm trying to unmute you, General. There we go. Welcome. And happy summer still. Yes, sir. Thanks for having us. Hello, committee. Hope everybody's doing well and weathering the storm, so to speak. So I'm joined today. I've got Ken Gregg, a deputy editor in general. He's actually off camera. Sergeant Major Nate Chipman, who's our state senior executive, senior enlisted advisor, and Major Kurt Kaplan, who's our judge advocate general. There were some questions perhaps about use of guard troops. If we talk about it today, that's fine. We can also do it on another day, depending on time. But I'll jump right into the basic training issue and then we run into with our education entitlement. So COVID has certainly derailed a lot of things and basic training for both our Air and Army National Guard have become a casualty of that. So training in doctrine command on the Army side and likewise on the air side has been forced to move training dates to the right. In some instances, very far to the right, which drives a backlog. So normally in optimum times, you'd find six to eight months before somebody would shift to basic training. And in this case, it's now extending to over a year. And what that does for our students that have been listed in the Air Army National Guard, they cannot derive the benefits of the entitlement. And that really drives the intent of at least giving a bridge so we can allow them to go to school, derive the benefit. And that's still with the understanding that they have an obligation. And failing their obligation, they become the loan and end up paying them back. And so again, this language is basically going to allow this to happen so that recruitment can continue. And so that basically, again, we had to create an end around for this to happen. This is the language that the attorney is going to present to us. Yes, sir, that's true. It should, until we can get things back on track and our both Air and Army training commands can eventually refine the process, inclusive of quarantining on the backside of COVID, that'll be how long we'll need this amendment in place. Okay, Representative Kalaki. Yes, hello, General Knight. The other day, I just want to make sure that other committee members notice that there isn't already a signed agreement with everyone about this, about making sure that they do the basic training. So when we allow this for the students to go back in the fall, if for some reason they did not fulfill that requirement, they're already bound to do that. So it's kind of a protection. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Do I understand that correctly? That is correct. Okay, thank you. Representative Walls. Thank you. I'm wondering, General, if this is having an impact on recruitment and just being able to have the personnel that you need. It is having a positive impact. And of course, again, with many things, this pandemic had really had a pre-market impact on our throughput of enlisted applicants because it's not just getting the basic training, it's actually getting them enlisted and into the door at military and in the processing station. So there's a lot of subtle piece to go into that, but it's certainly slowed down our ability to do that. We're still making progress, but I think this education entitlement remains central for many of our students that are joining the Guard. So I'll check with our recruiting folks, and I can certainly get back to you, but I would say that probably 50% of the Army enlistees are doing so, citing that as a primary consideration. So I don't think that number's changed much since the exception of this law. The Air Guard, I think that number's a little lower. It's probably about 30%, but I haven't checked on that for a while. So I can certainly get back to you, but I think it's a market benefit for us and as discussed in previous testimony, it's something that we haven't had before. And I think the longer we have it and the more it matures and the more informed the public becomes, the better off we're gonna be for it. You know, yeah, thank you. But you know, part of my concern is if you can't offer basic training now, just how is that going to affect readiness and the number of personnel you have ready? You got a deployment coming up. What is that gonna be? We should be in pretty good shape for the deployment. So one of our benefits in being a multi-state brigade, so within our infantry brigade combat team, there are six states represented. So we have a majority of the New England states and Colorado. So this deployment is, while in its entirety, is large part 86 brigade. It's not just Vermont. So we'll have somewhere between 900 and 1,000 for monitors deploying, but other units will be coming from our sister states. So we'll have less of an impact there. Long-term, it's a valid concern and it certainly isn't just Vermont. This is a nationwide concern regarding readiness. So I think that the Guard and the Army and the Air Force are doing a pretty good job to very quickly address it, but it still entails quarantine at the front and the basic training and likely quarantine and attesting at the backside. So you're adding to training schedules and that takes away from the college students ability to manage the semester school. So there's significant sacrifice here that comes with this. So that will remain a challenge, but we've got our eye on it. Again, it's a nationwide problem and being addressed nationally. Okay, thank you, sir. Representative Triano. Yes, General Knight, how are you doing today? Good, good. So just a question, having been through basic training, I understand that there are certain circumstances in which injury or illness can halt the basic training of an individual who has all the best intentions of getting through it. And I guess I'm just wondering if this has got a place in this, if this situation has a place in this modification or amendment and maybe it's better asked to Jim, I'm not sure, but it's just something to come up in my mind. Well, the only provision right now, this is kind of Greg, the only provision right now would be unfortunately, because they wouldn't be able to fulfill the commitment that would become a test. I mean, the other language has provisions where the adjud in general is able to waive the debt under certain circumstances, under certain circumstances. So for example, the person was injured in basic training. Would that be a valid conversation to talk about the adjud in general, having the option to waive the debt? There is a provision in the language now that allows that. Okay. But I guess it would probably be on a case-by-case basis. Okay. Thank you. And Representative Corana, there are instances where if somebody is injured or fails out of basic training due to illness or whatever, there is still a window of opportunity for us to have that soldier airmen return and we can in essence renegotiate that basic training seat and get them back into the system and hopefully get them to a successful completion. Yeah. Okay. We used to call that recycling. It was the dread of every recruit. I'm gonna have to try it again. It hasn't changed, anyway. Sure. Thanks, General. Recycling even then. Um, the, is this a good time to ask Jim to come in and walk through the language, General? That sounds like a plan to me, sir. All right, Jim. And Jim, you are co-host, so you can share the screen if you'd like. Okay. I haven't done it before. So, your screen, yeah. And where would I find the document? I'd like it too. James, I thought, Judge. I don't know. It'd be on your computer screen. If it's not, if it's, it would be coming from your computer is the road. I mean, we can have, if you're more comfortable, Ron, are you available to put the language up? Yeah, I'm bringing it up now. Just a moment. That's great, Ron. Okay. Yep, thanks. All right. Give me just a second to bring it up. Yeah, and Jim, you'll just have to be explicit on when to have a shift, when to have the... With him. And then after this, General, we'll talk some about the larger military budget. Yep, can you do that? And then Ken's here. He was very closely engaged with on the budget. Okay. Okay. So, for the record, Jim Dameron and his console, we're walking through draft 2.1. of draft bill language for the Vermont National Guard Tuition Benefit Program. Begins with a finding and purpose. I'll just read through it, because it's quite short. So first it says, and Ellis will member of the Vermont National Guard is entitled to certain tuition benefits. Four courses taken at Vermont per secondary educational institutions and the Vermont National Guard Tuition Benefit Program. And one, if you scroll down further, thank you. Two, one of the eligibility requirements to participate in this program is that the member must have successfully completed basic training. Three, due to safety measures implemented to address the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of available basic training class has been reduced, making it impossible for members who are new enlistees, what are we here? To complete basic training prior to the fall college semester and then for the purposes of the section to allow these new enlistees to gain the benefits of the program if they were otherwise qualified to participate in the program. So what this does is section B establishes an interim for my National Guard Tuition Benefit Program and quickly by way of background because the members don't qualify under the program and statute because they can't attend basic training. We are setting up an interim program that is the same as the program and statute except for the fact that does not include the requirement to complete basic training. So that's how this is working. So reads the interim Vermont National Guard Tuition Benefit Program is created solely for new enlistees who have not completed basic training solely due to the reduced number of available basic training slots as a result of safety measures implemented to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The structure, administration and terms and conditions of this interim program should be otherwise identical to the Vermont National Guard Tuition Benefit Program and statute, except that the interim program shall not require that a member has successfully completed basic training which will allow it further on. I was one of the members under the interim program shall be entitled to this Tuition Benefit for courses offered by a participating public secretary of educational institutions only during the fall semester of 2020. That is there because if you scroll down further, Ron, this is being paid for with current relief funds and you can't use those funds after December 30. So this will only be in place until for the fall semester of 2020. So Ron, if you scroll down a bit further, so the sum of X is appropriated in fiscal year 21 from the current relief funds to VESAC to fund the Tuition Benefits under the interim program. And then C says that for enlistees who want to use the Tuition Benefit in the spring semester of next year and thereafter. And if they have a clear basic training due to the reduced number of slots because of COVID-19, then the requirement in the statute that scroll down a bit further, Ron, the requirement in the statute that they have successfully completed basic training is waived. So what we're doing for the first fall semester is we're using CRF funds and creating interim program that doesn't require the basic training element. And then in the spring semester and thereafter, we are waiving the requirement under the statutory program. In other case, D says that before funds are allocated to a member under B or C, the Executive General shall provide verification to VESAC and the member has a reservation for a future basic training class. And then E, in the program of statute, there's a service commitment. So for time you receive tuition assistance, there's a certain amount of time you have to be in the National Guard. And so what this is saying is that academic attendance under the interim program shall count toward the member's service commitment under the statutory program. So you're not losing that in terms of the service requirement. This section is repealed in F. It's repealed under the date that the Executive General certifies to the House Committee on General Housing and Monetary Affairs and the Senate Committee on Government Operations, that all members who have not completed basic training do so to the reasonable available basic training slots as a result of COVID-19 have successfully completed the work we're currently attending basic training. A copy of the certification shall be sent at the same time to the office of the consul. And the effective date of this session is search reactive to August 17, 2020. That's it. You've got it down stills. Questions? Clarifications. Representative Kalaki. Yeah, thank you. I'm just wondering for the retroactive date to August 17th. Why is it that date? Because- I believe that's the date Norris, sorry. That was given by Vikram Fagan, I believe, as the beginning of the school year for maybe Norris to make sure. That's correct. This is Ken Gregg. The retro date is to cover the students that were enrolled in Norwich that had already showed up as cadets. Okay, great. Thank you. It's like, oh, I can't, I can't. All right, further questions for Jim right now? I mean, this seems for all of the words, this seems to provide the workaround that we're looking for in order for these folks to continue their education while they wait to do the basic training. General, had you seen this updated language previously? Not this version of it, but this is along the lines of exactly what we're looking for. I hope we can't about it during this concert. Okay, and this is only to be clear again. This is only to apply during basically the emergency, right? As soon as we're, quote unquote, back to normal. We revert back to the requirements that exist right now. Is that your understanding? Yeah, there it is. Okay. And all right, so what else do we need to know from this? I mean, it looks fine. We have Representative Gonzalez in Toronto. I have a question, but I think it's actually more for the guard. One of the language that jumped out for me was about reservation for future class. Future, I kind of scribbled a little bit, but so wondering about that language and just how that process works. Particularly since classes keep getting pushed out and we don't know kind of how long that is. So again, this is a question for the guard rather than for our attorney, but wanted to ask that. Yes, ma'am, that's actually a valid piece of this. We have to have a reservation date for our future members. That's part of the process. And it's one of our measured areas for success with either on the air guard side, what we call our future flight program and on the army side's the recruit sustainment program and our success rate with getting reservations, getting our soldiers in that training pipeline, all of that feeds our measurement as a state nationally. So this is a logical addition to this. It makes sense and it solidifies the fact that they're a given agreement here. And so as things get pushed out, as trainings get pushed out and kind of remade, those reservations are just continuing along with those date changes kind of thing or are they getting cleared off and then re-adding? What's that process for having reservation as the dates keep changing? So basically I don't want people to miss things basically. Right, so since this thing really began for us and earned us back in February, the process has become pretty refined and it's more a matter of how we do business now. It's all been taken into consideration. So we're gradually catching up and rescheduling the previous reservations and it's a little more streamlined now with new enlistees and they're getting their reservation dates much more quickly. They still may be a year out, but at least we're getting dates on the calendar. Great, thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Representative Triano. So that's sort of where I was going. So if a young person, if an individual goes into the recruiter and signs all the papers and documents to enlist in the National Guard, then they are given a potential date for commencement of basic training. Is that what you're saying, General? Yes, sir. So when they go to MEPs as part of that enlistment process, that's when they'll get their initial date for basic training. The backside of that is their actual training for their specialty, their Air Force specialty code or their Army Military Occupational Specialty. Those are separate training dates unless they go under, in essence, a one-stop unit training where they do it all at one shot. A lot of our folks will be called split option training. You'll do your basic training for instance during one summer and then the following summer you do your training. Okay, yeah, that clears it up. So I read this this morning when it first came down and it really seems to cover everything quite well and I think it spells it out. I don't see any potential problems or issues with it. I would support something like this. Thank you. All right, any further questions on this bill, on this language? Can I assume by, I guess by show of blue hands to approve this language that we can just have this passed over to appropriations and basically that we approve the concept because the language may change yet again, but at least in terms of what this is, I would imagine that this is the language we would like to have passed over to appropriations. I see, if there's just hit your blue hands. I have eight so far. Then by that number we will pass it along. But Mary Howard, your hand's not showing up. Mary and Randall and representatives on. Mary's putting her hand up. Okay. All right. Then, all right, let's go ahead and lower those. I don't know how to do it in one fell swoop here. All right, well thank you, Jim. I think we're all set. If that's language that we will let, we will let appropriations know, we'll send a note with that that this version 2.1 is the, that we approve of the concept and that this is the language that we approved. If it does change substantially, please let us know. But we'll do that at some point today and let them know that. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So moving on to the next, the larger budget. General again, only half of us were there last week. And so if you could just review what the governor proposed and how it was handled in terms of, I mean, it seemed, those of us who watch, we didn't seem to have any indication that there was a problem with the budget as it was represented by the administration. So if you could just fill us in on what you had. I'm gonna swap places with Ken, Ken manages our military department budget. And I will step out of the way and let him answer any questions. And if I can provide for five minutes, I'll do that. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon. I guess if the thought is a general overview of our entire general fund budget, is that what I'm assuming? Or you wanna talk specifically on our overall tuition budget? Well, there were two things that came out. And I didn't ask for the information that was provided that showed the changes. It's more about the changes. I think we reviewed and basically gave our blessing to the budget such as we knew it earlier this year. We had sent a memorandum about a bunch of different subjects. What I heard last week in appropriations was two things. One was while the scholarship program itself needed this fix and while there has been success that there were funds that you were returning. But also that there were other funds that were coming in and out that changed your budget. And that, I mean, I imagine everybody was asked to do a 3% change in their budget. And I just, and so I think what we wanted to hear was what those changes represented, what the give-backs, why, you know, if you were gonna cut your budget by this much, you know, were the give-backs part of that cut or was it something separate? And then how are the budget cuts, the budget proposal cuts to the military budget? How do they affect you in real time? Absolutely. So based on the budget instructions of 3%, our share based on our general fund budget was $173,000. 37,000 of that was related to service-wide costs. The inter-agency service-wide costs such as HR and IT services and stuff like that. And the other 136 we actually took, because it was room to do so, a reduction in our tuition base. So we'll talk about the tuition. So the governor's recommended budget in this winter was 1.426 million for tuition benefit program. And as we refine the estimate, we've come down to with a couple of things that have happened. Number one, with the deployments, we're gonna have members that won't be using the benefit. And number two, the air guard effective one October is also receiving federal tuition assistance, which is the additional up to $4,500 of assistance. So our money is gonna go further. So we've come back and said, well, we would recommend 1,026,000 for our tuition budget, and which subsequently left 400,000 available for reduction. 136 of it was taken for the general fund overall reduction. And the rest is being, which is about 264,000, is being considered by House of Probes as a reversion so that we don't erode the base, maintain the base for future years, but to take it as a reversion this year. With all that said, the military department's budget is basically operationally with five. We're not gonna be negatively impacted. We're able to meet payroll benefits and our operational needs and meet our match to our various federal programs that we have to provide. So we're in really good state going forward for 21. And where are, no, it sounds like the deployment is kind of financially as, I don't know, makes it interesting. I don't know what the best phrase is. How does the upcoming end, and we'll get into the deployment I suppose later in details, just in terms of the finances, at what point, isn't there a point where payroll is met by the federal government when they get deployed overseas? Actually, when we talk about payroll and benefits, we're actually talking about all our state employees within the military department. Which are much less than, which is 160 of them. Some of them may be in the guard and some of them may deploy and be on leave of absence. But pretty much when I was talking about the deployment impacting tuition, obviously it's the fact that they're not gonna be here and pay classes so we won't be using that money. They'll put their education on hold while they're deployed. So again, so the message that I'm hearing first off is that the 3% is not going to negatively impact you in this current fiscal year. Correct. As long as, and then there's that caveat for the next fiscal year as long as your base isn't eroded. I'm the tuition piece, that's correct. Yeah. Is it a tuition piece? The rest of our base is fine. Okay. Representative Shrina. Yes, I'm just curious that now when a deployment takes place, there's a lot of logistics to get 1,000 troops to a foreign country, for instance, where they may be deployed. Is that paid for by the federal government, air travel and all the other shipping of equipment and logistics? Is that covered by the feds? Yes, sir. That's all 100% federally funded. Okay. Very good. Thank you. The tuition funds now are in memory of when we helped you build this program was that there was going to take some time to get up to the full par value of what you were seeking. Is that, are you seeing that as a, I mean, we've talked about it being a successful program. Are you seeing that right now as this gap, this surplus, you just testified some of it's because of the federal money, but are you seeing the usage of this program going along in the same pattern that you expected? I think we're about a year behind because I testified earlier, I think with appropriations during the winter, we were slow getting out of the chute for the first year launching and getting our recruiters up to speed and getting everybody understanding and getting out into the schools. So it looks like we lost eight, 10 months. So, but what we're seeing going forward is it's definitely trending in the right direction. We're seeing a marginal uptick of which we're anticipating 20, 30, 40 students. You know, between 25 and 40 students a year is at, and we're saying over a four year period, we think we'll be at a four to five year period, we'll be at a steady state where we think that number will be somewhere around 200, 210 students realistically based on averages and historical numbers from other states. The number that's been a difficult target is actually coming up with a sound or a solid estimate because of variables like the deployment is gonna cross two fiscal years. So it's gonna take a hit a little bit of a reduction or less money use this fiscal year coming. And then the following state fiscal year as well, they'll be, it'll cross both years. So that variable, and then when we put it together our estimate, we didn't have knowledge that the Air Guard members were gonna be afforded federal tuition assistance, which obviously is a big number. If we have a hundred people, for example, in the Air Guard doing the education benefit and they're all allowed $4,500, there's all of a sudden there's a $450,000 reduction in what we would be otherwise asking to use. So we're trying to work within those moving targets and try to make this realistic of estimates possible. That's why I felt comfortable this year. And I felt it was appropriate to go back and say, I think we have 400,000 more in the estimate in the budget than we really need. And that's why we identified it early so that it could be available. The original intent of the scholarship program was to supplement your recruiting needs. And your recruiting needs you had identified last year in order to replace people who were moving out that if I remember correctly, the number was around 300 per year. Are you seeing this scholarship working again in that way where it's supplementing any recruits that you're having that are non-students? And are you coming close to reaching what you had identified as a par value or is that too kind of a shifting thing just over time, depending on what's in front of us? I think there's two different dynamics. I think it looks like anecdotally that the, again, we've had 50% plus of the Army Guard folks identify the tuition benefit as their primary interest in coming into the Guard. So on the Army side, that equated to about 100 enlistments. So that's a real, that's, and who knows? I mean, somewhere between 60 and 100 is that real number that made the decision truly because of the education benefit. The interest also is the demographics. We're seeing more enlistments in the coming right out of high school demographic whereas our low end demographic before was more of somebody that was out of school two years, year and a half, two years, three years, trying to figure out what to do, oh well, let me go in the Guard. So we're seeing that benefit, the target base of being able to get to the yellow people that are trying to figure out how to pay for school and what that next situation is. I think another real strong benefit has been the fact that it affords trades and certificates. So we're seeing that benefit as well because it's created a flexibility for people that aren't necessarily interested in just going to a traditional college situation but can still gain a trade or a skill. And again, these folks are part-time, mostly. Initially, whether they become full-time in the workforce or not, that's who knows. They have to get through school first. Any further questions for Ken, really with respect to the overall budget? Again, it seems like it's a minor change that they can live with and that's where we, again, that's what we have to kind of give our blessings to the appropriations and those of us who heard the presentation last week didn't have an issue with it. Does anybody else have any questions or for this one, do you want to just do a thumbs up? Basically, our decision on this will just be reflected in a very short memorandum or email, actually, just to say that we're okay with this budget change or presentation. So do we get that? Matt, oh, Matt, you use this hand. Good job. All right, so what I'll write to the Appropriations Committee and I'll CC everybody is that we're okay with the military budget and with the language for the scholarship. All right, General, let me have said, thank you, Ken. Now, General, if you want to return and the next thing we had was the, an update on the deployment itself and the planning and the execution of what's going on. Do you want to do that or do you have, can you reintroduce, actually, before we do that, can you reintroduce the folks that are here with you? In addition to myself and Ken, I've got Major Kirk Kaplan who's our judge advocate general, he's my subject matter expertise on all things military law. And then, so I made your, Dave Shipman who's my state senior listed advisor. He represents the non-commissioned officer and listed members of both the Air and Army National Guard. And these are not the folks that we've talked about in the recent past about the new hires that you made? No, I can arrange to have those folks here. Yeah, okay. No, I just wanted to make sure if they were, if they were the ones that we had been talking about, then we would certainly not make them come back again. But seeing as that they're your right and left-hand people, we'll just have them come every time you come, I suppose. Representative Triana, do you have a hand up on this or is that a leftover? I do, no. I just wanted to take this opportunity briefly to, while the general's here is to report that my attendance at the Northeast Regional Veterans Affairs Committee last week, the Under Secretary of the VA reported to us that in regards to the burn pit legislation that we had passed last year, that the VA now has an additional burn pit registry that they're using. The Under Secretary told us that there have been 10,000 awards made for disabilities with regards to suspect medical conditions as a result of burn pits. I was really happy to hear that. I thought that the VA's reaction and action and reaction to this burn pit, which I don't know if it started with us, but we sure did put some effort into it. And I am so gratified to hear that the VA is acting in this way. And I just wanted the general to know in the event that he didn't or ran his staff to know that in the event that you haven't heard this, I am just really gratified that this is happening. That's outstanding, Representative Fran. I appreciate the legislators' work on this and I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be able to testify. And we're going to continue getting that word out. I'm still not satisfied that we've reached out to a sufficient number of veterans that are exposed to burn pits. And there are some ways that Mr. Greg and I are going to work to get at that. I did send out a quick legislative update last week that five pager kind of hitting the way of top. But one of those things is to use the system that can work with the state folks on to come up with and making it mobile, getting beyond the dot mill or dot gov firewalls that we deal with and actually making it much more streamlined. So I think by leveraging the BFWs and legions and publicizing it in town hall forums, we're going to be better able to get veterans to come in and actually register for the burn pit. That's what I was hoping that would happen when we work on this legislation. So I appreciate your work. If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. Absolutely, we'll do, sir. All right, so let's move on to the deployment. Where are we? So we're in the midst of preparations. We've had annual training ongoing and we've got another one coming up here in October. And if any of the committee members are interested in coming up to our Ethan Allen camp, Ethan Allen training site and visiting soldiers, I can certainly send the dates out. We're happy to host you here, bring a mask. Even though we'll be able to maintain social distancing, it'd be great for our soldiers to see you. So in the update that I sent out, we've got operations, mobilization and deployment. So that's coming up during the winter and spring of 21. So it'll be here pretty quickly. And so we've, a number of units, originally about a year ago, I did a public service and now that we received the notification of sourcing, which simply means the army is turned on funding. And that's the fund training and the fund equipment coming into Vermont to get our units ready to deploy. Since then, a number of units have received an alert order, which in layman's terms makes it much more real. So if we're on a patch chart somewhere, meaning this unit is aligned with this, what they call a force tracking number, you're assigned to a specific combatant command. So in this case, unlike in 2010, when the brigade deployed to Afghanistan as a unit in its entirety, in this case, as noted in the summary, we're going to different combatant commands. And basically that's driven by the combatant commander's need for troops, what mission are we doing? So if, for instance, it's a force protection mission, the training will align with that and the construct of the unit becomes, in essence, a battalion task force. So there could be elements of an engineer unit, an engineer company or platoon, they could have reconnaissance elements to it. So in the end, the brigade is taken apart and made into these battalion task forces. And again, it's a multi-state brigade. And those units will go to, in this case, European command to different locations. In this case, this one primarily, it's an enduring mission will be Kosovo. And then we'll go to Africa command and then to Central Command. And all of those, I don't have all the details yet, some of which I'm simply limited in what I can share because of operational security. But in all cases, the training and funding aligned specifically that command and the supported commanders in that theater. And again, that's going to be winter and spring coming up pretty quickly here. We'll have kind of a staggered departure of units and the time on the ground is about a year for most units. So concurrent with that coming up very near term, we have a deployment with some of our air guard folks. This is a non-flying mission. These are our support personnel. It's called a reserve component period where we'll mobilize for a period of about six months. A lot of support personnel from the wing and they will go to different combatant commands. In this case, it's primarily Central Command and they will support with personnel, logistics, airfield operations, those things that are most needed. And they will go to that combatant command and support units already in theater. And then that term of deployments, it's a much quicker rotation for the air guard and we'll have those both back here in about six months. How will that affect local training for the air guard? For the air guard, operations will continue. Most of the folks, if there's any impact at all, it'll be in the admin field and a lot of those medical personnel supporting clinic operations and logistics. But we'll be able to continue operations and the intent obviously is to get that wing operational. That's part of our federal mission. And that's, so how many people in total? Should be between 80 and 90, I don't have an exact number, but fewer than a hundred in the way. For the air guard? From the wing. And then what about for the Army and Guard? Army and Guard, between 150 and 1,500. Between 150 and 1,000. So that's just about a third of the force, of the Army force. And those are specific, that's what impacts Vermont. There'll be more soldiers from the brigade that come from our five sister states. Right, so, I mean, I just, so when you've done been doing the training, the guard was notified several years ago that they were on tap for this time period. And so, is there a sense of, I don't know if relief is the right word, but I mean, you didn't know until recently that it would be this many or this few people. Is that right? It was all part of the fact that we kind of knew what the missions were going to be. We didn't have perhaps a degree of fidelity that we have now, but for our soldiers, and certainly anybody who's in command, what you find frustrating is to put your soldiers in units through their faces. And we've done numerous collective training events. And we're probably the only infantry brigade in the Army, for instance, that's gone to the Joint Readiness Training Center about four times in the past 10 years that nobody does that. And we're able to do that. And we did it very well. But that in the end, it becomes kind of a treadmill. You're really grinding your soldiers through these training things. And there's kind of a no so what, what are you using us for? And they want to go, they want to deploy, and they want to make a difference doing these missions and then come back to Vermont and continue doing what we're doing, for instance, in response to COVID. Our soldiers at Army are all in with that mission. But that doesn't take the degree of training. And certainly the degree of complexity, challenging collective training that we have when we go to the RTC type scenario. So in a situation that we're in, a pandemic, we're going to be putting together a whole bunch of people who are going to be going overseas to a different place where there's going to be potentially different strains of the COVID perhaps out there. What kind of precautions do you know of that are happening on the basis overseas that will, that just pay attention to the pandemic? Well, it starts with, for instance, the mobile post-mobilization training. So for instance, if they're mobilizing out of Fort Bliss, Texas or Fort Hood, they go there and they quarantine for two weeks. They will do the deployment and then there's going to be obviously a time allocation on the backside of a deployment to quarantine for two weeks. We're short of that seven day quarantine and testing. And we just had a smaller version of that with our air guard who traveled with about 250 members to Wolk Field in Wisconsin. And they work with our counterparts there who to me kind of became the example. It's a remarkable job coming in. Our airmen were screened. They flew via military air. So no commercial air was in essence from a green location being Vermont to a green location that was sequestered from the rest of Wisconsin. The very specified training area. They were tied to the training area for the two weeks. And then upon departure were tested again, coming back through the middle air, short of the handful of folks that traveled via commercial air or overground. And those folks are tested when they get back here to Vermont. Knock on wood, I don't want to jinx anybody, but we've been very fortunate and had no positive tests come back from that exercise. So the mobilization will be on a much larger scale. Again, with those battalion task forces, but once they become a title 10, they're mobilized to put on orders for title 10 to do this federal mission. It becomes the training sites responsibility to make sure that they're trained and we'll be monitoring on the backside of that when they come home. They'll again be a quarantine period, short of a vaccine and we'll certainly continue to look at our test capabilities here when they come home. Representative Kalaki. Thank you. In terms of the deployment of the air guard, our other air guard members from other states joining us on this deployment, I was walking around in my neighborhood and a new family had just moved in and I was talking to the mother of the children and she said, oh, yes, my husband's in the air guard. We just moved from Wisconsin. So I don't know, does that count as a Vermont air guard person or are people moving from other states to join us in this deployment? I guess it's my question. Well, sir, there are people that certainly come to Vermont to join us. I would welcome any and all who want to do that. In this case, it may not necessarily be just for the deployment. They could have come here for the opportunities that we offer here. There's another piece of that, something that the air guard does and the Air Force is doing is called total force integration and that's bringing active duty members. So in our case, we have the 315 fighter squadron here integrated with our wing and that helps integrate and get that federal organization operationally ready. Once we achieve our operational readiness status, the 315, which is an active duty unit, transitions out and we've become fully national guardians. Thank you. Yes, sir. So general, one of the, well, let's go ahead and represent a triangle. So I guess I was just wondering now, will this deployment have any impact on the readiness of the guard to participate in food distribution or any kind of an emergency within the state, general? No, sir, it should not. We've been planning for that. And again, it's less Vermont and more the whole of the brigade approach involving all six brigade states. So we will have, as with previous deployments, a pretty robust grid attachment headquarters, a command here. In this case, it would be the brigade support battalion and inclusive in that, we've got a gears and support command, which is our aviation unit and the folks that run camp even on training site. And then we've got the regional training institute. So we've got resources in place and the intent is to not lose any capacity or capability in response to domestic operation. Good, very good. Thank you. Yeah, and we will, that's correct. So we will also have a thousand airmen remaining here. So general, thank you for all this on the deployment side. I would like to focus on where the support for the families is the preparation for that. One of the things that happened with the deployment 10 years ago was that there was a real rebuilding of the family services units and how they were able to reach out both in the buildup. Everybody knew at the time that it would be a substantial deployment. And while this may not be as substantial, there are certainly 950 families or more that are gonna be affected by this. What programs are in place to make sure that especially during this crazy time that families have the support that they need, again, both prior, during and after? So we have, well, in large part, it starts at the unit level and you have family readiness groups run by volunteers, by spouses. The unit tracks a bone tree and a significant communication between the unit and Jada. All right, general, I can't hear you. I'm wondering if we can pause while the F-35s go over so I can hear you, because I'm very interested. Hold on a second. All right, how are we? That was third, I probably ate. So it'll be a few more minutes. This morning when they flew over, they flew over in threes and then there's another pause. So I can hear now. Okay, thank you. So we have family, you have starts at the unit level with family volunteers. Yes, sir, we have family readiness groups. And then at the state level, I would argue we have probably one of the best family programs in the nation. So part of that is the military family and communities network. So it kind of branches out from just us, but there's a number of resources that they bring to the table. And all of that is kind of brought to the families through yellow ribbon events. So significant discussion prior to deployment, making sure that families understand all the resources that are available to them. I had the opportunity to go speak to these prior to deployment and certainly when they return, because everybody goes overseas you see different things. We again, reiterate a lot of the resources that are available. We also have on the enlisted side. Just pause for one more moment. Well, you never know, but it sounds like the coast is clear for now. Okay, thank you. I'll be flying six this afternoon. So I made you chipman, can add to some of the discussion regarding resources offered to families. Hey, thank you, sir. Hello. So just to shed a little light on this as the units work up towards their window to deploy and then during the deployment and then post deployment. This is something that's tracked in what we use, we refer to as like a commander's update brief that the units, even from the company, the battalion and even the brigade would track their family readiness group readiness in order to be able to sort of be able to provide all those services for the families while our soldiers and amateurs are downrange doing that title 10 mission. So just the other night, this is last week, I stepped into one of the 86 IBCTs, commander's update brief. And this was a topic of discussion during that brief to the commander. So it was really nice to see that all of those things are in place and being tracked all the way down to the company level. And in fact, the family readiness group leader, she was there being able to brief all of the readiness for each of the family readiness groups that are from the companies and the battalions and all the way up to the brigade. So this is something we track very well and something that we take very seriously as we move forward into the deployment and then during the deployment. And then of course the yellow ribbon piece afterwards is something that the state level here, we keep oversight of that as we track as folks come back. So I hope that helps to clarify a little bit on the family readiness group support network that we have. Yeah, it does. It just, you know, I think one of the things if I were a spouse of a service member and I had one or two or three children during a time when it was very who knows what public education is gonna be like in terms of this that we know that these families have a lot of stress to begin with. I mean, we have done a very good job with the yellow ribbon ceremonies and with other programs that have again, been in place for the last 10 years that have identified the family members as being an incredibly important part of a deployment. It just the idea that there will be extra added stress because of the pandemic or because of educational difficulties or what have you. I hope that the resources are, my expectation would be that the resources are there to manage, to help families manage being a single parent and homeschooling your kids if that's the way that this goes has to be one of the most stressful things that's gonna be out there for the next year. I would agree and central to success, as I mentioned, is that read attachment headquarters. They really are the liaison between us and the families. That's a significant part of what they do. I think probably our biggest challenge is with any organization of this size is gonna be effectively communicating with everybody. So we're certainly revisiting that. We actually have the air guard has an app. The army should have an app which is a very efficient way to get information out very quickly and at least prompt somebody to read it or do for the research on everything that we offer for resources. And represent of Gonzalez. Just clarifying in terms of definition of family when you all are thinking about that and reaching out. I know a lot of what you have is directed towards children as Chair Stevens talked about that really in this time having that extra support around children that are homeschooled. Just wondering, and I can't remember if when you talk about family, if you're also talking about legally married spouses or partners or kind of where that squishiness comes in. You can talk about that a little bit. There's nothing in this program. Usually it's whoever's identified as the family by the service member, yeah. Did you hear that, ma'am? I did. And so in terms of that, does that also mean parents? Or other folks in an extended family network if the service member is identifying them? That's what I've seen in the past, personally. Yes, ma'am. Great, thank you. All right, further questions for General on the deployment? I mean, I think we're gonna, I mean, I know we get to only know what we get to know through the press or when things are happening. But if there are elements of the support system, I mean, when we come back in January, I suspect we'll need an update and make sure that you have the resources available. Because again, while this committee can't determine what your military strategy is, we certainly are here to make sure that the people that are involved, families and then the folks when they come back have the resources that, and have access to the resources that are available. So make sure, please to keep us in the loop in terms of where you see that there might be a need for those resources. Absolutely, we'll do that, sir. You know, it's, I mean, I know, I don't like kids of age out of school, but I've seen families since their kids were 10 years ago, so they were 10 or 12 years old. And it's been interesting to watch them grow up with multiple deployments for their parents and see how the system has been able to help them. But knowing full well that there have been issues that needed to be dealt with simply because of their service. Yeah, very much appreciated, sir. And we're not shy, I'll also reach out to the congressional delegation and Senator Sanders has been really wonderful in ensuring our family programs remains as ready and as robust as it is. All right, thank you. Anything else? The other topics that we had to talk about with you are, and we will arrange another Zoom meeting perhaps next week or when you're available next sometime before the end of the month of September of finding out about the new hires that you've made that are perhaps in relation to the, not only to the Provost Marshall, but also to the other programs that are career oriented or that may be gender oriented or diversity oriented that we've talked about in the past. Certainly there was a bill that got a lot of discussion of H401 which was the chief diversity officer and this committee chose to go in the direction of the Provost Marshall at this time. But we also wanna meet those hires and the way that it was represented at the time was that you felt that there would be some overlap with what the direction we were going in with the Provost Marshall and some of the hires that you've made and I'd like to be able to meet them and hear the direction. Also you had a pregnancy and career initiative that has started and then the other subject matter was something that came up. I mentioned this to the committee yesterday was the idea that constituents have been concerned about the notion of the guard possibly being federalized to be here on home soil and I'm sure that we would probably just need a real clarification of what your role is, what the guards role, the Vermont guards role is in situations like that. But we don't have enough time to go into that in detail today and I wanna make sure that that gets a full hearing. So we'll reschedule you in. Stanek sir, if there's any amplifying questions regarding the use of the National Guard, any specific points of concern, and if you send those along, I can get those to Major Kaplan and he can do the research and be better prepared to answer. That is doable. Yeah, Representative Triano. Just wanna follow up, General, on your invitation to visit the range and some of the troops. So I think you might have my, you're likely have my email address. I would be interested in coming over sometime and have a helicopter ride. No, just kidding. I think I know a guy, we can make that happen. Okay, it's good with me, just let me know, General. Yes sir, I would look forward to seeing you and that goes for any members of the committee. So that'll be, I believe mid-October, I will confirm the dates and send that out to Representative Stevens. And anybody's interested, we can certainly make accommodations and then get you out there for a visit. That'd be great, thank you. And I ain't gonna lie. I mean, it's foliage season, are you sure there's room for us? Anything further for the General and his folks? Thank you for taking the time to talk us through some of these issues and for filling us in on the budgetary issues and the scholarships so that it's helpful for us to just check that off our list. And I'm glad to be able to get you in as early as we were able to. This is gonna be a busy month for all of us. And so I appreciate you taking the time. That was good, thank you all for that. And so, all right, you are free to go. You can click right off, yeah. Thank you. And committee, we're gonna get right back to S237 tomorrow. I've asked Ron to make some invitations of people. Again, the list that was shared with us from the Senate was extremely long. I don't know about you, but I've been getting quite, VLCT has activated many of the planners and others on this. And so we have, I've received a number of requests and we'll try to fulfill what we can. So I've asked Ron to invite, again, we have such limited time. So we're just really trying to keep it. So tomorrow we're gonna hear from David Hall on the rest of the bill that he worked on. And then Ron will let us know when the agenda changes about who else. Do you have, Ron, did you, were you able to get any invites out or? I sent out to the three people you indicated, Karen Horn and Chip Sawyer from St. Albans and Peter Tucker from Southern of these real estate management. I've heard back from Chip and St. Albans that he's on board, haven't heard back from the other two yet. Okay, and it may be that, well, and that's fine. So we will hear more about 237 tomorrow. Again, because this is the end of the biennium, again, I mentioned this yesterday, we will be working on, this is the housing bill. So there are some stray things that are out there that we will discuss and attach to this bill after discussion, including elements of age 739. There's a bill S187 that got sent to human services and it's a small bill and it has to do with allowing a place like Harbor Place, which is a transient temporary shelter. It allows people to live there for more than 30 days without being kicked out for a day, which is right now because of the way that landlord tenant law is. And we talked about this a lot with the, with the recovery residences is that if you stay in a place for 30 days, you are de facto tenant and eviction law goes in. But there are exceptions to that law that where if a hospital in particular is paying or others are paying for the rentals, that there's like a nursing home or something like that where there's, people don't become tenants in that way. They would be able to live there for uninterrupted. Right now, the world that we live in now, if you are homeless and you go to Harbor Place, you have to leave after 29 days for a day and then come back. And so that's a little awkward in terms of, in terms of the overall. So that's what that bill contemplates. It's about, I won't say it's simple, but it's very straightforward. And it's possible that human services will take it up, but it's also possible that we would be dealing with it in committee. And we'd have testimony on that. Representative Clacky. Chair, can you give me an understanding on Friday? We're going to be hearing from all the stakeholders in the $85 million housing plan we put together. What are we, what is our committee's response? Are we supposed to, if things are undersubscribed or oversubscribed, are we supposed to then recommend where to move money? Or I understand what I've listened to. Yes. The short answer is yes. The way the budget process is moving is that, and this was again mentioned yesterday in the appropriations committee meeting was, they're looking to be done by next Friday. And so, yes, we will get an idea. And again, I think we're in a place where, unlike the business programs, where the subscriptions are oversubscribed because everything was first come first serve and it went out fairly quickly. I think we're going to hear for the stuff with this, with the housing is that the programs have stood up. There have been some, there have been a lot of applications, but not as much money quite yet. But again, we think that it's not, come September 1st, after a month of not having the $600 extra in the unemployment that we may start seeing more need for back rent come up. And so that, so we're, I think we're in a slightly different place where there's more prognostication, but I think in the end, what we're going to, yes. So I'm going to go to the short answer of being yes. And we need to, by the end of this month, we need to allow the Joint Fiscal Council, which will be our representatives for the rest of the fall, some flexibility if more funds are needed in any particular, for instance, if foreclosures, we didn't put a ton of money into foreclosures, right? We put $5 million if we find out that they need two or $3 or $4 million more that the Joint Fiscal Council will be able to do that. So yes, we'll start to identify where the needs are and how we can, those are the cards we have, they're the same cards we left with basically, again, because the federal government punted on the Senate punted on having a solution until at least September 8th at the earliest. So, you know, we have to move ahead with what we have. Okay, thank you. All right. Well, thank you, everybody. We will see you tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. Have a good evening.