Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly]: Welcome everybody to the Committee on General and Housing. It is in fact Tuesday, January 20 already, 2026. This afternoon, we are going to work until 03:00 and there are other meetings and other things happening, what we are doing this afternoon is introducing a number of bills. Now we are going to start with representative Will Greer, who's got two bills to talk

[Representative Will Greer]: to us about. Take it away, Will. Thank you, Chairman Ali. So I will jump into the first one I wanted to talk about because I think there is a little bit more information and since it's a short form, I feel like it lacks a lot of information that's on there, and that's the one related to limiting overtime for medical staff, and for residents and people that are training to practice medicine. The genesis behind Just BILD was over the fall I think there was a lot of discussion from people I know in my general area about the right now, but also from medical students both at UBM, but also in other medical schools, future and graduate work, and how they are working on their industry hours, and that that is in a way causing them the energy that they're needing to put in to really hone in on the craft and make sure they're delivered by care is their learning skills. The one thing I did want to talk about, the reason why it's a short form is, and I wanna make sure I get this acronym right, because it confuses me quite often, but the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has some guidance already for maximum number of hours that can be worked during the week. Again, going back to what Spon built, there was a case that actually originated from Bennington years ago back in the 80s, was a college student, her name was Lamoille Zion, and she lived in New York City, and she was a student at the college, and when she was back in New York City over the holidays, she needed to go to the hospital, and while she was there, while her parents were not there in her immediate vicinity, she passed away, and a lot of that was attributed to the fact that the old staff that were there, including the graduate medical students, were overworked, they were tired, they were not prepared to essentially survive. That made out of the law. Her father ended up suing the hospital, it was in New York City, and ended up just taking the law in New York State, a few other states set up some laws around mandatory overtime, so it's still allowing it optionally medical staff and for graduate students to work overtime, but they've put in some laws mandating that, it can't be mandatory, or at least limiting that. Let me just make sure I've covered the two together points first. So there's a lot of hope in our community that we see in Bennington, that this is kind of near and dear to us, well as a college community, but also community at large, because we want to make sure that our medical staff are on their A gate, we want to make sure that they have enough time off to rest, because being in a medical setting is probably one of the most stressful things that you can imagine for a patient and an infant. Also under the federal Labor and Stations Act, most medical employees, think, mistaken, I believe most all are generally exempt from some of those mandatory, excuse me, not mandatory at the time, but some of those overtime regulations that are currently in federal statute. And so yeah, that's pretty much all I have on my end from that bill. It's a short form again, because there's a lot of complex interstate laws that need to be navigated, federal laws that would have to be navigated as well, but I definitely think it's something we should put on our radar. I understand, and also part of it too, we do have high overtime costs, I'm sure, within our medical expenditure right now as it stands in Vermont, which attributes to our high cost in healthcare, but overall as well, over time is needed when we do have that lack of staff, and so it's a double edged sword in that regard, but I hope it's something that this committee will take up at some point, if not this session, one day in the future, because we do need to address the lack of staff that we have, but also with our emerging people that are going to be working in these settings that are graduate students, they need to also be able to rest they can practice as well. So that's all I have, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Questions for Representative Greer?

[Marc Mihaly]: Well, I have a couple. I just want to understand better. Who is covered by this bill? So, I can pull up the exact list,

[Representative Will Greer]: but I believe we put practicing physicians, graduate medical students, and also medical staff at hospitals.

[Marc Mihaly]: So like would an RN be covered? Yes. But as I understand what you said, did I understand correctly, this doesn't limit their hours, it just provides for time and a half or overtime.

[Representative Will Greer]: So no, it does limit their hours to 60 a week, I don't, to 60 a week overall, and there's certain, I forget the exact periodic breakdown that we made it, but it reflects somewhat of already what the accreditation council has, which their maximum is eighty hours a week. There's been a lot of people out there in the medical field that have advocated for about sixty, I think it ranges depending on jurisdiction, but generally people view the 80 to be quite a lot of hours in a given week, and the way the accreditation council works as well is it's 80 a week, I believe it's spaced over a month, so they've heard that, so if you go over three twenty over a four week period, that's when it gets flat, if I understand their calculation.

[Marc Mihaly]: And the bill also would have an overtime provision? Yes, there

[Representative Will Greer]: would be no. Over 40 or? Yes, over 40 standard with current labor practice, yep.

[Marc Mihaly]: I've got

[Representative Will Greer]: a question.

[Marc Mihaly]: Yes, please.

[Unidentified Member (Committee on General and Housing)]: Do you have any idea how long that eighty hour a week standard has been standing?

[Representative Will Greer]: When it say they changed, gosh, I'm forgetting now if it was the late '80s, there was a revision made in about the mid-2000s, 2004, 2005, so I couldn't tell you which one concurrent ADL was that it's from, because what may have happened in 'five was they just changed some of the breakdowns about, instead of doing a 24 block, maybe you can do a sixteen hour block, but the eighty hours, it was just more staggered, so that may have changed, but generally it's been at least one minute to get some pain. Thank

[Marc Mihaly]: you, please.

[Unidentified Member (Committee on General and Housing)]: I'm sorry I'm late, so I may not have heard from the beginning, but as a scenario, if the nurse is working and they're not relieved, they have to stay. So what if it goes past that amount of hours?

[Representative Will Greer]: So that is why this is a short form because there's a lot of moving parts to navigate with the fact that nurses are on the call, and again, going back to that mandatory overtime, there's the issue around patient safety and also continuum of care and making sure that there is someone on staff that can be there for the patient when they need it, even if that person is on overtime at a massive amount of cumulative hours over a week. So that's why there's a lot to navigate with this. I knew this was not gonna be an easy topic to discuss, I wouldn't be able to have all the correct answers either in that regard, but that's something to consider with Bill that I haven't even thought of how would that be.

[Unidentified Member (Committee on General and Housing)]: That's pretty hard because I was married to an RN, my sister was an RN, my sister-in-law is an RN and they wound up having to stay because if somebody can't cover, they have to stay.

[Representative Will Greer]: And the biggest thing, and I think this goes back to what I said a minute ago, I don't remember if you remember the rumor or not when I said this, but is that we have to address the shortage of people in the healthcare field in order to make this work properly. It's the same thing we face over in corrections and institutions with correctional staff. The schedule doesn't make sense unless you have enough people able to fill the positions that need to be filled for that schedule that worked, because they switched their scheduling system last year, similar to some of the changes that requested or advised to do this fill, and that would have to be answered. So I don't have a solid answer. Would be

[Marc Mihaly]: solid. Other questions?

[Representative Leonora Dodge]: I just want to clarify, and people covered, it's medical staff, including nursing staff as in LNAs and medical assistants, or only RNs, like our LPNs and LNAs, LPNs,

[Unidentified Member (Committee on General and Housing)]: medical assistants?

[Representative Leonora Dodge]: Okay, no separation between nursing and medical.

[Marc Mihaly]: I'm just thinking there's a lot that would have to be done here. Who was was Sophie your allegiance?

[Representative Will Greer]: Sophie, okay. And that's why I I don't mind speaking on her behalf a little bit on this, but that's why we went with the short form was because we knew it was gonna be very difficult with all the funding cases. Okay.

[Marc Mihaly]: Okay. Before we move on, any last questions about this bill? Will, thank you.

[Representative Will Greer]: Go ahead. And the next bill is seven thirteen, I guess. Yes, so this one is related to the establishment, and this one is more fully written because we have statutory language that we are able to use from California, but this is related to the establishment of a fast food council, which would oversee a variety of different aspects regarding fast food employees in the state of Vermont. So first of all, we have a definition around what would be a fast food establishment. I think we went with the same language in California, which is 50 or 60 nationwide sites, and it would be applicable to any of them within the state of Vermont. I don't know all the names off the top of my head right now that would qualify under that criteria, but what the Fast Food Council essentially does, this is modeled after California's legislation. I spoke to some employees at my district over the fall that work at fast food restaurants. They're offered more competitive wages compared to a traditional restaurant in the area, yet all of the profits and all of the proceeds are sent out of district, usually to another state altogether, it doesn't stay locally in the community. A lot of them too get paid lower than what you would get paid at a local restaurant or whatnot, but they're essentially at a disadvantage when you're working or being advertised to a fast food restaurant, at least in my area, they're able to offer different pay rates, different benefits, etcetera, etcetera, at the detriment of the local businesses and local shop owners being able to offer some of those same things, and I will say again, I think that a lot of our restaurants in our area do a pretty good job of that, but what this really is about more than just making sure that there's a set minimum wage differentiates between fast food employees and other employees in the same sector, and also training certain benefits, things like regulation oversight. What it also does is it makes sure that they are in competition with one another and one's not getting pushed over by the other in the sense that it puts our fast food businesses on the same playing field as our local piece. So pretty much, and I didn't want to go too much into the language of that, I thought Sophie would be good to do that, but that was kind of where the origins of that started as well.

[Marc Mihaly]: Questions? I guess I do.

[Representative Will Greer]: If not, oh you do.

[Marc Mihaly]: Well I just want to admit, I haven't read the bill yet. So this applies, minimum wage standard, fast food works. Does. Now are restaurant workers already covered by minimum wage?

[Representative Will Greer]: I believe so under my law, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I do think that 're on a separate, don't they have a tipped minimum wage and they get paid whole or made whole, okay, so same thing here with that sense. For fast food, I think you're thinking weight staff. Well, I was gonna say that's, I was going to make that distinction, although if I'm, and maybe I am wrong on this, but I think that also some fast food, maybe not all, but some still do the tipped wage rate, and then make them full or make them whole up to the number they were promised. Maybe I'm wrong Leonora, I don't know, but that's, I've seen tipped options, and maybe they do get paid that base rate and people can leave tipped options, but I've gone to several fast food restaurants where I've seen that, so that's the only difference I can see there. I remember it was on page five of the bill, I don't know if you all have the bill in front of you, it says out there that we would establish a minimum wage, whereas people were saying that I should just put a number in there or a placeholder, and I said, I think that makes the point move. I think what it really is, is that you all really by establishing a council to look at this, they should be able to take in all the different cost of living factors in Vermont and things of that nature, so I didn't want to

[Marc Mihaly]: So that's the purpose of the council, is to set the minimum Yeah, and to annually review it. And annually review it, rather than just statutorily.

[Representative Will Greer]: Right, yep. And same thing with training, same thing with other regulatory oversight with fast food. The other thing I will mention, and I think this is important, in doing this research, one of my constituents came to me about it, the California Fast Food Council that was established, I believe it was in 'twenty three, let's say it was maybe August '3, and they were pretty successful for a year and a half, they met, they were able to do some things. I do not know what the circumstances are, but I do not believe they have met in almost a year. I don't know if that's because they have no standing business to settle, or what that is, but I think that's definitely something that if this were to move forward in this committee, examining how that council would be regularly required to meet to avoid any sort of gridlock or whatever is taking place in California. I hadn't read into all the politics except it, just their structure, so. Thank you, Will.

[Marc Mihaly]: Any further questions?

[Representative Leonora Dodge]: Does the council have an appropriation

[Representative Will Greer]: to it, or is industry safe none right now, again, think that'd be something potentially for appropriations to consider. I know we definitely could not discuss, because I don't know what standard, but what would a per diem look like, what would a salary, would it be made up of? Well, mean we do have the makeup there, I do not have that off the top of my head, but how do we pay them necessarily? Are

[Marc Mihaly]: they state employees or are they?

[Representative Will Greer]: There's a mixture, I can pull up the, here let me just

[Marc Mihaly]: Usually if they're government employees, then it's subsumed in their work, but if it's non government employees

[Representative Will Greer]: So if you would like, me just read make sure all the people is part of the council, so five voting members, a representative of the fast food restaurant industry appointed by the governor, a fast food, and by the way, should mention this was modeled pretty much after California, so nothing here is completely different, although it's subject to change. Second, a fast food restaurant for HIZ, a restaurant owner appointed by the governor, fast food restaurant employee appointed by the speaker of the house, an advocate for fast food restaurant employees appointed by the committee on committees, and one unaffiliated member of the public appointed by the governor who is not an owner or franchisee officer or employee in the fast food restaurant industry, is not an employee officer or member of a labor organization restaurant, representing fast food restaurant employees, and who has not received income from the fast food restaurant industry or any labor organization for a period of two years prior to appointment. Great, that would be excellent.

[Marc Mihaly]: Thank you. Any other questions? Will?

[Representative Leonora Dodge]: Yes, thanks. Did you, we were just sent, it looks like on our page, did we go over the letter from the International Franchise Association? Do you have any comments on the letter? I'll

[Representative Will Greer]: see that letter then, not sure. We take it after. Goodbye. Well, I'd love for them to send it to me as well if they're watching. Well, it's

[Representative Leonora Dodge]: on our committee page if you want to record it under the documents. And

[Representative Will Greer]: Leonora, I'll get back to you. I think you're probably right on the tipped issue with the wage and how that works with that, Because I know our minimum wage laws are very convoluted. I mean, when we talk about agriculture workers and all different sectors. Oh,

[Representative Leonora Dodge]: they're not covered by

[Representative Will Greer]: Yeah, was gonna say they're covered Exactly, so I know there's so many little caveats, so I wanted to make sure I get that specifically.

[Representative Leonora Dodge]: And do we just, is there a definition for a fast food? Like is Busy Bee a fast food or is Starbucks food? Let

[Representative Will Greer]: me make sure I have the, I think I've told you something.

[Marc Mihaly]: I think it's in the bill.

[Representative Monique Priestley]: There is a

[Unidentified Member (Committee on General and Housing)]: reference. There's Yeah, I want to

[Representative Will Greer]: make sure I It read you the right may not be in the bill, it may be separate to it, but I want to say it is separate to, yeah, right here. So a nationwide fast food chain means a set of limited service restaurants consisting of more than 60 establishments nationally that share a common brand or that are characterized by standardized options for decor marketing, packaging products and services, and which are primarily engaged in providing food and beverages for immediate consumption on or off the premises when patrons generally order or select items and pay before consuming with limited or no table service. So yeah, I'd said a minute ago, I wasn't sure if we put 50 or 60 in that, but we kept it standard with Californians.

[Marc Mihaly]: Others? Well, thank you so much. Thank you. Monique, you wanna come up?

[Unidentified Member (Committee on General and Housing)]: Welcome.

[Representative Will Greer]: Thanks.

[Marc Mihaly]: Representative Trisalee is going to talk to us about H713.

[Representative Monique Priestley]: Yeah, thanks for having me.

[Marc Mihaly]: And when you do, do not assume that we know what they help. Automatically, we

[Representative Leonora Dodge]: certainly don't know anything that you know.

[Representative Monique Priestley]: No, no, so yeah, so a little bit of background for this is that on the different task forces, including the NCSL Task Force on AI Cybersecurity and Privacy, that has legislators from all over the country, we just tend to share with each other, especially all of the tech bills and what everybody's running and how that's all going. And so this was basically inspired by Kristen Gonzales's bill in New York, Senator Kristen Gonzales, that passed in 2025 Senate Bill eight twenty two, and that was supported and largely pushed by AFL CIO. And it got passed.

[Marc Mihaly]: That's been signed.

[Representative Monique Priestley]: Yeah. Oh, but I am getting mixed things. It sounds like the governor might have actually directly done something. I don't know. So I'm gonna figure that out for you. Okay. I just barely got a note that it is in effect, but it might be different than the bill passing rather than the governor. You repeat that? Senate Bill eight twenty two. Thank you. Yes. And so, yeah, and this is also related to the other bill on your wall that I went over last year, was like protections for general kind of workers when it comes to automated decisions. So like systems, especially like artificial intelligence systems that are basically making decisions, whether it's hiring employees, or not to hire them, whether or not to fire them, just generally like making decisions that a system is making on their behalf, maybe not with a human involved. So that Bill, when I introduced last year, or maybe even the year before, giving you the story of the people who have like cameras tracking their eye movements whether or not you're typing and whether or you're chair. So it's like very similar, it's like similar decisions that are being made, but in this case it's specific to members of like unions, in this case like state employees, And then there's a study in this bill that would look at like, do we extend this to municipal employees, do we extend this to teachers, like other people who are protected in different types of unions. So the gist of the bill is that it gives disclosure of whether or not these automated systems, like automated decisions are being made about employees. And the other thing, which I know literally nothing about, this is where a new lawyer and you all as experts, I don't know the union collective bargaining world, but we wanted to put in protections that these systems also can't undermine labor protections basically, like labor union protections. There was a third part of the bill that was an artificial intelligence kind of inventory for the state, but we moved that into a separate, it's its own bill. So you'll see that in eighttwenty twenty two if you read it. I mean, the general gist is that this is not interrupting or saying that this, you know, employees, employers, the state cannot use these systems, it's just saying people should know if these systems are being used. And when it comes to things like, in general, when you're using the automated systems, want to be able to say like if something, if data is used incorrectly and somebody's fired, you want to be able to know how was that decision made, what factors went into that decision, and is there any way that a human can basically go back through, and or a human should be involved in the decision when it's really the risky ones, like firing somebody. So it's really largely a transparency bill and a kind of a disclosure bill. And that's why it's so short. Let's see, and in general, since this is state's employment, just really pushing, again, we want our government to be transparent, not only with things that we're doing in this building, but also when it comes to employees that are being paid in public funds.

[Representative Will Greer]: Let's see. So

[Representative Monique Priestley]: I think that's the gist.

[Marc Mihaly]: Questions? Yes, thank So

[Representative Leonora Dodge]: did this arise in New York because it was being used, can you tell me?

[Representative Monique Priestley]: Yeah, so this was, the labor unions actually were the ones who were pushing this in New York, So if I'll say CIO was the driving factor there and I can get you the memo that they have that was submitted for like why.

[Representative Leonora Dodge]: Yeah, so this is like a preventative for my-

[Representative Monique Priestley]: It's definitely preventative, yeah. No, for sure. So a thing to bring up too is like, I'm vice chair of the joint information technology oversight committee. And one thing, we are looking at all of the major softwares that we're using and everything. So one of the kind of employment softwares that are keeping track of all of our employees, there were lawsuits publicly from one of the software vendors that started arising of announcements of lawsuits of AI systems being discriminatory basically, and biased in decisions using data to make employment decisions. And so those were the things that's like, red flag, let's think about the systems that we are using in the state, does have a feature that is not, I was told, not turned on at the current moment to allow the automated stuff to just happen, but it's a feature that can be turned on. It's available. I just want to make sure, yeah, let's put it in safe airs for that.

[Marc Mihaly]: Questions? So I guess I have some questions. Just want to, I'm trying to understand, at this point I just want to understand, So this, does it only apply to state employees?

[Representative Monique Priestley]: Currently, and then there's a study

[Representative Will Greer]: which should go further.

[Representative Monique Priestley]: To see if it should go through municipal employees, teachers and other public school employees, and then employees of public higher ed, is the three buckets. And those were, that was just a brain brainstorm on my part of trying to make

[Marc Mihaly]: sure that we're probably finding out whether these systems So are in it's disclosure, not prohibition. Probably am I right to give the labor union the information it needs if it wants to protest against a decision based on these systems. Could you give a couple of examples of what's in these systems? Okay, eye movement, typing, anything? Well, that's just

[Representative Monique Priestley]: like, that's the general type of thing, I'm not sure how they're using it, like, I think the biggest case is like so many of the hiring, like the software that you are trying to get people to apply to, like a lot of, say you're applying to something on LinkedIn, but say that it's a state system that you're applying to. In general, you've got thousands of applications and most companies at this point are using systems to filter through all of those applications. In places people are documenting of like, there is discrimination that is happening and bias that is happening at that level, and a human may never know, and you may never know why you were declined in an application, and the same types of things can be used for making decisions of whether or not you're doing the

[Representative Will Greer]: right work and you should be let go.

[Representative Monique Priestley]: It doesn't provide, it's not as hefty as the general kind of automated decision making bill that I had submitted that also includes protections. This is really just the use of the software itself and whether or not it's being involved in situations, and if people are telling people that it is, it doesn't go as far as the other bill.

[Marc Mihaly]: Did you introduce this one which doesn't go as far as your prior one? Sort of as another

[Representative Monique Priestley]: This was more, I think for me this is more of a flag to people to think about it, especially in ways that I think the other one is like, if we can do it, protects everybody, it's great, thinks about privacy and thinks about decisions. This one is like a flag of like, from my perspective, as somebody who's watching our IT systems and our states to say, I hope we're paying attention to whether or not we use these.

[Representative Leonora Dodge]: Yes, Leonora. I'm curious in the history of the technology, it, I mean obviously everything is happening all at once, right? But work from home, the increase of people that are working from home, is this one of the responses from management side to keep track?

[Representative Monique Priestley]: I'm not sure if that's why New York Today 22, for me that's definitely like as I'm trying to think through and write these, the artificial intelligence privacy bills, I think a large, a big concern for me is how we support like small businesses and how we support employees and just the future of our workforce. Think it's a piece that we can't, as these systems can, not only make decisions to affect the humans, in a lot of cases they most likely in some cases will replace the humans, and are we thinking through the way that we're using these systems to make decisions about how our workforce is structured and who's in it to come, I guess.

[Marc Mihaly]: Other questions? No? Monique? Thank you so much. Yeah, thank you. Thanks for coming in.

[Unidentified Member (Committee on General and Housing)]: Yeah, definitely.

[Marc Mihaly]: For members of the committee, is, since the end of our day, tomorrow morning is important, we start at 09:15. The first is we have JFO in here to talk to us about the budget process, what's involved, what our role is, etc. So that's important. We're going to have at 10:00 a report by the three of us here talking about our thoughts, our recommendations about which bills we take up and what order to start. I mean, we're not going to be going that far into the future, we can't predict the whole session, but just at least initially, to get people a sense of what's out there. I think that what we'll do is provide you a list of all of the bills that are on our wall, what they're about, etcetera, just by way of preparation. So this is a first in other words, we've been consuming our time introducing bills and with other introductory matters, it's time for us to next week, probably starting next week, maybe even Friday, really get into some substance and so that's what that will be about. Then at 10:30, we ask the administration to come in and present to us the administration's bill on land use and housing. I can remember last year, the administration gave, well, they shared with us something like an 80 page draft of their omnibus bill on regulation of housing. The bill when it was finally introduced, which took a long time, went to environment. But we took almost half the bill ourselves and then put it into what eventually became H4 something 59 and then S-one 127 and we passed it. And so this year again the administration has a bill that won in the House that Patty McCoy and our very own Vice Chair have signed on to, which has elements of both Act two fifty and other reforms that the administration supports. And it also has a bunch of regulatory and housing related matters. So, I thought I would do this and again, it was referred to the Committee on Environment, which does both land use and environment. But it has elements that implicate housing directly, so I asked Patty and Alex Farrell to come in tomorrow and present the bill, you know, what their thoughts were. And I asked them to emphasize, do the housing part. So, to be concrete, for example, the bill contains, as you heard the governor mention, repeal the road rule. I don't think that doesn't belong in here, it's over an environment. We could

[Representative Will Greer]: talk about it.

[Marc Mihaly]: We can talk about it. There's no problem talking about it, but there are other elements they have that have to do with housing that I think are certainly interesting enough that we ought to be talking about. So I ask them to come in and that will consume the rest of the

[Representative Leonora Dodge]: morning. Have you had time to look at sections of it? Are there specific measures

[Marc Mihaly]: in there that,

[Representative Leonora Dodge]: I don't know, do we need to look at last year's? I am happy to provide

[Unidentified Member (Committee on General and Housing)]: after that tomorrow, a

[Representative Leonora Dodge]: summary of the specific housing initiatives. I don't necessarily, that should fall under this jurisdiction. No there dollar amounts?

[Marc Mihaly]: Some, but for example, as we've mentioned, Tom and I have been working on a bill for rural housing, excuse me, I'm just forced today, rural housing finance, which has sort of got a whole bunch of different things in it to help housing in truly rural areas. Well, we took a whole bunch right out of the administration's bill and just put it in. There's no reason we can't take up things that are in there for us, but we're talking about it. So that's at 10:30 and goes until lunch. And then after lunch, we're hearing A, before the floor, we have four witnesses talking to us about federal impacts, federal cuts, but on labor. We've heard indirectly, effects on housing, etcetera, in all

[Unidentified Member (Committee on General and Housing)]: the testimony that we heard last week and the week before. This is late. Except the vote that changes to fair housing. We have not heard about, and that does affect us and our committee.

[Marc Mihaly]: Do you mean It would spend.

[Unidentified Member (Committee on General and Housing)]: HUD has a series of rules change changes with regards to repealing parts of fair housing, but also fully repealing how fair housing is handled within both HUD and the Department of Justice.

[Marc Mihaly]: Do you think we should have

[Unidentified Member (Committee on General and Housing)]: HRC in here? As I said earlier, yes, I do think that we should, because think it does regard literally the most vulnerable people in our state, And it also changes the budget for it has budget impacts for Human Rights Commission, which has contracted in previous years with HUD to work through some of their fair housing related cases, they will not be receiving that funding. And so it actually has an impact of around 100,000 which is a staff member. It does matter.

[Marc Mihaly]: Miriam, I think we should have, I'll talk to you afterwards, we'll get HRC. Hopefully by the time they come in, it could be as early as Friday, they'll know more what their budget is because they asked for a lot and I'm not sure what they're gonna get. I think the governor's budget is just out. I mean, He gave his budget address, so now for the first time it will be made public. Do you know when it is that the budget actually, do you have any idea when the budget actually becomes available to the legislature? I'm assuming it is I probably available now would assume so. So we have a full day and then the House is at 03:00. I also want to remind people, you know the house schedule where it's at 10:00 on Tuesdays, 03:00 on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and then 09:30 on Friday. Next week, starting next week, I'm pretty sure next week the two 03:00 days become 03:30. And part of that I think has motivated the desire to give committees a little more time before floor because there is a tendency to lose that, in other words, if it's three and the floor is only an hour or forty five minutes, people don't reconvene at 04:00, so to push the 03:30 time a little later. Any questions about tomorrow or anything else before we adjourn? Seeing none, everyone, I will see