Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Welcome back, everyone, to the Committee on General and Housing, and it is 03/11/2026. And our next item is to take up one of the policies of this committee is to, whenever a bill is referred to our committee, is to have the author of the bill, lead author, come and briefly present the bill to us and explain what the bill does in their view and what their interest was that caused them to want to introduce it. It's not the same as a walkthrough or taking testimony, etcetera, it's just the commencement of the process, and this one is at H919, an act relating to classifying incarcerated individuals as temporary state employees, and it's introduced by representative Troy Hedrick, who is with us. Troy is on the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions. Welcome Troy. I apologize that we just have a fair quorum, but everybody is running around to other committees on votes that have come out of it.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yeah, you can let them know how fascinating this is, and I'm sure they'll want to read or read Thank through the story you, Chair. You, committee. I'm always happy to discuss this matter outside of my own committee room. For the record, Troy Hedrick, I'm a state representative from Burlington, shooting at 15. So currently, incarcerated Vermonters provide labor that would otherwise be provided by state employees. You can think of kitchen work within our facilities, custodial work within our facilities, other somewhat pep jobs facilities. You can think about labor that subsidizes Department of Motor Vehicles. We have proprietary labor making license plates that has been in place since 1999. Despite the fact that they're providing- Did

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: they make all the license plates?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: I do believe so, yes. Yeah. There was an article recently when the state was considering going to a one license instead of two, the impact that that would have had on the state, it also would have had an impact on the labor that produces those license plates. So despite the fact that they're providing labor that would otherwise be provided by state employees, we pay incarcerated labor anywhere from 25¢ an hour to $1.2 $1.3 there's some bonuses. On average, incarcerated Vermonters make about 65¢ an hour for their labor. On top of that, and this is just a bit of a tangent, but I want to frame what it means to make 65¢ an hour on average. We use private contractors for telecommunications, for commissary and for medical care as well. But I wanna focus on telecommunications. With an average wage of 65¢ per hour, if I want to make, a fifteen minute phone call costs about forty minutes of labor. A thirty minute video call costs more than seven hours of labor. And sending 10 messages per week costs nearly four hours of labor.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Wait, are these help us out here. Because what they charge.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: This is what a prisoner is charged for doing these things?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Right, we privatize telecommunications. If I want to stay

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: in Telecommunications touch for incarcerated individuals.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yes, so I want to stay in touch with the people who I consider to be my circles of support, and I want to do that through what would be considered a very modest amount of communication, fifteen minute phone call, thirty minute video call, 10 messages per week, given what I make as an incarcerated person, making 65¢ an hour, that would cost me thirteen hours of labor every week to maintain that level of communication. Additionally, this lands primarily on the folks on the outside that support these people. And these are often lower income families, and it is not at all uncommon to increase debt based on fact that's no way to generate beyond the $0.65 an hour labor that people are providing. Again, that would otherwise be provided by state employees. So upon release, there's no savings. Upon release, there's an immediate scramble to get reestablished. There's no way for incarcerated folks to contribute to any sort of victim restitution, and my premise is that if we paid that unfair wage, some of those things could be better in place, including a mandatory savings account, a mandatory victim participation account, and then money for a commissary or telecommunications. Although in my committee, I'm trying to work on no cost calls as well. It's not going to vote this year. So the bill is pretty simple. Short form bill. It classifies, let me just read it here, any incarcerated individual who performs labor for at the direction of or under the supervision of Vermont Department of Corrections as a temporary state employee. That's what his bill does or intends to do. I have also heard, I have not confirmed that OSHA protections do not apply to incarcerated labor, but I don't have actual debt or evidence to verify that.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Does this have all the, this is just the money piece, not benefits, though, right?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: I don't think temporary state employees get benefits.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Right. Yeah.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. They're temporary as opposed to limited service.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yes. Right. That's what this bill says, yeah, if you wanted to

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And that's what your intent?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yeah. Right. Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Yes. Do you know other states, what happens? Nationally,

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: this is sure

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: it's a phenomenon that's

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: not I don't, to answer But your question

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: you're not modeling this idea on another

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: So I have been trying to just do this through prison, you know, corrections policy. And through those conversations, asked one day, what would happen if I was getting out of a strike? Something? What would happen if incarcerated labor just didn't provide this labor? And somebody from DOC said, well, we would have to pay somebody to do it. So then that's what clicked for me. I was like, these are state employees. That's what they are. They're providing labor that would otherwise be provided by the state. Why don't we call them state employees? And I looked at the short form.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Well, it's very apt that we've got this here today, right? That's who's gonna be making those. Shelby, well, I just had a question. Do you know how much it costs in housing and meals for the housing? Well, I mean, we just talked about the

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: By the farm farm

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: work forty months turns a day.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, but- About 114,000

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: per year per inmate.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Well, I'm just thinking if you paid them more and then you subtract their housing and meals, which you're doing for farm workers. Well, you can subtract $5. You can subtract $5 a day. $5 a day. But that's not what it costs. No. It costs much more than they could ever earn. Mary? My concern is, this is for all inmates. There are I mean, they are in prison for a reason, and I'm concerned about the people that are hardcore defendants giving them an option to become a state? Are they going to be supervised? Is there constant supervision for this?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: They're supervised

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I don't know.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yeah, I mean, they're providing labor now in the kitchen custodial. There's supervision that occurs now. And are you inviting a comment your concerns, or do you wanna just express

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: your concerns?

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: It's my concern. If you have any information about it, I'd

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: be I glad to hear. Don't have information necessarily. I have thoughts, I have a philosophy. If we truly look at incarceration to be rehabilitated, and I think we make that claim consistently, then everybody's rehabilitative. Everybody has the potential to be rehabilitated. Right now, are no parameters on who can and who cannot do labor within Department of Corrections. So, and you're not alone, right? I had another representative say, I wanna support your bill, but I'm worried that somebody who has done something incredibly heinous receives its benefit. I don't see it as a benefit. I see it as payment for labor. And there are no parameters in place right now. Even at current rate, there's no prohibition based on, and this goes for housing too. A person's crime does not determine their level of security in which they're housed. A person's behavior once they're incarcerated makes those determinations. Are they a threat to

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: the safety? Come to others.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Yeah, yes.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: So even right now, people who, I think everybody is worthy of rehabilitation, I think everybody is worthy of providing labor. Just think we should be fair of when otherwise that would be provided by state of

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Go ahead, now I have a question.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I have a comment and this reminds me, we don't often have in our jurisdiction discussions about incarcerated individuals and where I live in South Burlington, we have, you know, folks who are incarcerated, the women's prison, and I've spent a fair amount of time over there because I believe that those folks are also, while it's not in my district anymore after redistricting, I've viewed those folks as my constituents as well and people who I should talk to and hear from. And so I just encourage folks if Choiceville just, you know, if folks have places in their districts where you have to visit and humanize people who are incarcerated. And before I was a rep, I also worked for a nonprofit where we helped people who were coming out of incarceration enter back into society, find jobs, housing, etcetera. And I just encourage folks who serve in the legislature, if you have the opportunity to visit and meet with folks and just hear their stories. So, we don't have the opportunity a lot in our committee, I wanted to give that plug for people to really meet the folks on a human level, and just regardless, it helps be a better policy maker, I think.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Troy, I have a question for you, Windham. Yeah. Did you ever consider, or you heard people suggesting a lesser approach, which would simply say the state cannot charge for telecommunications and other services?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: That's underway. So I have a bill right now that is going to turn into a study. I'll see it later this week or maybe next week. And there is a national movement to divest from private telecommunications. There is one nonprofit provider. The cost to the state, it's an estimate at this point, we're probably due for $500,000 to provide no cost calls.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: A year?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yeah. So yeah, the bill started with fair pay deprivatizing commissary and deprivatizing telecommunications. That's gonna go to a study and hopefully if reelected, I'll pick it up again next year.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We just heard on the floor an example of a fee which cost more to collect than it earned, and I'm wondering whether, I don't know how they collect, how do they collect the money for the telecommunications?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: You have an account that people feed, typically folks on the outside are feeding, not accounts. Any

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: other questions? Yes, yes and yes.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: What's the history of even a 65¢ an hour? Like, if you're recognizing that this is labor that deserves payment, remuneration of any kind, why set it at that amount? I

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: think it's recognized as legitimate labor. Think I it's recognized as punitive part

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: of being incarcerated.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Part of your sentence, right? Oh, sorry. Saudia and then you, and then Tom. Or Saudia, you're next. Tom. I'm sorry, sir. And then Joe.

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member, remote)]: I'm on Zoom. I'm sorry. Alright. Thank you. Just a question. Are incarcerated individuals, mandated to work or is this by choice?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: They're not mandated to work. And testimony I've heard along the way is that there's, if everybody wanted to work, they would have to ration the hours available, if that makes sense, which I think is fine. I mean, right, if there's, yeah. But no, there's no mandate to work. And one of the arguments I hear from the department is that this is better than nothing. I think that's a false choice, because if you gave people a choice to work for nothing, work for 65¢ an hour, or work for whatever the wage is for temporary employees, know what I would choose. It wouldn't be 65¢ an hour.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Saudia, is that your question? Do you have any?

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member, remote)]: No. I had a quick and I just had a quick statement. I just wanna say thank you for bringing this forward because, you know, our carceral system is so broken, and we put people in isolated situation and expect them to reintegrate into society with no support systems or structures in place. We say, okay, go in here, isolate yourself, go and time out, with people who are dysregulated, overmedicated, overprescribed, or under medicated, however you choose to look at it, and put in these really harmful situations and then reintegrate into society when your sentence is done. And then we wonder why recidivism is so high. Then we say our family connection is the core part of everything. And we look at our addiction rates, we look at our suicide rates, we look at our homelessness rates, we are cutting off connections to individuals and we're disempowering them to be productive citizens when they come out by not giving them the opportunity to work and be treated like humans or have some symbolization of, yes, that you're serving your time, you're isolated, you're being punished, you're in time out, you're getting all the things that are part of being incarcerated. And also if you choose to take that step to work, that is work. Because if it weren't you doing it, which in essence at 65¢ an hour is basically slavery, you we would be paying someone else to do it. So thank you for bringing this forward. I just wanna say thank you, and I appreciate all your work on helping and support incarcerated individuals so that we can have a more improved society, because they don't stay incarcerated forever. So thank you.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: To your point, representative, I didn't do this and I won't go into depth on this. So this all links back to the thirteenth amendment that created the exception clause that you could incarcerate somebody and they could still provide labor. Vermont very recently prop two removed that language from our constitution, meaning you can no longer use incarceration as a reason to invalidate slavery or indentured servitude. I would argue that this is indentured servitude.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Let's see, who is next? Tom. Tom and then Joe.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: I'm good.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Think it's Tom. It doesn't matter.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Think it's potential certainly in setting up people for reentry. Yes. So they can hopefully find housing. Right. New clothes, whatever. The funding will be a question, and I think historically, the revenue brought in from the license plates has helped with the cost of running. It doesn't amount a whole lot for facilities. So cost is gonna be, you know, where does the money come from? Russia's a different committee. What I'm curious to know is whether we need to classify them very specifically in class patient of state employee or whether calling them temporary state employees will trigger other labor laws that we're not able to fulfill.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yeah, I think those are valid questions and if you decide to find a way to continue conversation about this, I think that's a really important back of the napkin math for me, this was a year ago I think, somewhere between 3 and $5,000,000 to pay folks a better wage, but I would encourage you to engage during fiscal if that's something you want to explore more. I will state that whatever that number is, that gives you the number of wage exploitation that's currently happening, right? So if you know that it would cost $4,000,000 to implement this, you know that that is the wage stuff that's currently going up.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Go ahead.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Thank you, beautiful. Did you want to answer your question?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, I'm good.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Can I ask a quick question? Can you remind me again what you said the annual, what it takes to incarcerate people?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: I think it's $114,000 I can clarify that for you by the end of

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: the day. 114,000 is what?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Is what? Annually what it costs to incarcerate one person.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, yeah, right.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: I think that's accurate, but I can check-in with you by the end of the day. We've got corrections in the room right now, so.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: A lot of people convicted in Vermont are incarcerated elsewhere.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Not a lot, I think the number's at about 150 right now. And it's always, it's only men, we don't incarcerate women out of state, but yeah, we use a for profit private facility in Appalachia, Mississippi.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Unless they're detained by ICE, then reduced out of state.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Then we don't,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: by the

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: federal? Yeah.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: ICE detained, that's a separate sort of classification, but yeah. Vermaager is detained by Heidi from Stavior.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Nope. Well, Katie was sent within like minutes was sent to Dantamore. A week or two after turning 18.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Any other questions? Saudia, you have a question.

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member, remote)]: No, I was just going to answer a question. I actually had my intern do some research in comparing the cost of housing, the cost of housing for incarceration, shelters, and public assistance and vouchers. And so incarceration costs in Vermont, she has 2 sorry, 95,200,000.0 for in state facility per capita as of 2022. And about approximately $50,000 for the cost per inmate per year for in state facility is what her research found.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You can't hear him, but he's saying he thinks it's higher than that.

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member, remote)]: Oh, okay. Thank you. That that was that I don't I didn't I didn't I just I just looked at her report. I haven't verified.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. Right.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Are other questions of Troy? Troy, thank you so much.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: My pleasure. Thank you. Appreciate coming. Always happy to talk about this one.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's not it's interesting for us because we're always led into areas that we don't know anything about, and incarceration is not something that is a primary element of the committee, but I see the bill came to us because it's labor law.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Right.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Would you make the case that it should stay in your committee? No.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: I think this is an avenue that is parallel to other avenues.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But if it was the whole thing about not charging for telecommunications, etcetera, that study and everything, that is in your

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yeah, would be terrorist policy.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, right. Thank you.

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yeah, I hear you.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Our next item is H887, an act relating to crime status. Is Emilie, This is Emilie's bill, she should be here for the discussion. Just to refresh everybody's memory, we discussion had of the bill and testimony from the attorney general yesterday. This is the bill that aligns the language in the Fair Employment Practices Act with the Vermont, help me out. It's the V L, I keep forgetting the initials.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Family Leave. Vermont. FMLA?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: FMLA, no. Family Medical Leave. PFO. PFO. Thank you, the parental and family leave. Yes.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Hey, sorry, I had an emergency.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Alright. We are live. Alright. So we are now taking and eight eighty I was just reminding everybody that we had testimony from the Attorney General yesterday.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Their office.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Their office, not the Attorney General herself. Do you want to make a

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I'll make a statement.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Make a statement about this bill reminding people what it and your reasons

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And for thinking about

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Mary, are going to do a vote.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Last session, we did the unpaid leave bill, as folks remember. It was the last year, it was that session. My pitch has gone well. One of the provisions in the bill was about safe leave, which is for folks who are experiencing stalking, abuse, domestic violence, that that could be a category of unpaid leave. So we passed that. Thank you to the committee. The Attorney General's office, as well as some others, advocates and others, reached out to me over the off time that they noticed, which happens with many bills we pass, sometimes there's something that happens that they notice after that, and Todd talked about it, that they noticed that there was an issue that didn't align with, I'm gonna mess up all the FIBA and all of those other things. I'm not on my A gain mark. And so there was an issue where it didn't align with

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: With their employment price. Okay, I

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: got this. With fee per. So they would like, this. I don't we're not calling this a technical correction because that's not what it is technically. It's just, making we're voting on this so that it aligns with the, Safe Leave Domestic Violence Fees, with FIFA, I believe, is So the my call to my pitch, if we're fading or not, is that we pass many bills here. Sometimes things happen that we don't know about and then we hear about from different places. And I would like us to align that. The Senate, as I've mentioned in here, also has this in their labor bill, but their labor bill has a few different elements in it. It's an omnibus bill. I would like to ask the committee, well, it sounds like we're voting anyway, to do this so that we can have it either so that we're ensured that this passes and that since our committee did the work on the other bill, I think it's important that we do this because it aligns with the work that we did to make it right. So, I would like that in house to do it and not just be like, well, it's in the Senate bill anyway because you never know what's gonna happen or if we'll like everything that's in the Senate bill. So I prefer to do this this way, is my opinion.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And in fact, the attorney general testified yesterday that though there is language in the Senate bill, he prefers the language here.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Right. Which, because I don't know what they did. Worked with on the best language because I did the research and worked. So, I just think that Anyway, that's what he said. But yeah, so that's my pitch. It's very small, but I think we should be aligning with the FIFA and, yeah, not wait for the Senate.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I have a comment, but I'm wondering, do other people have thoughts or comments?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Oh, and one more thing, I believe Ashley, our Vice Chair, was here yesterday and Supported as well. She's not here,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: but She literally cannot, even attend remotely and Right. She would have voted for a member,

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: she must also support

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, I just want to say, well, I have a suspicion about this, but I'm not This is not my field, so I'm not really that knowledgeable. The FMLA and PFLA, These are those laws are laws giving rights to people that relate to employment. And what I think what I think is happening here, and the reason I think this came from the Attorney General's office, you know, the suggestion, is that when they find a violation and they want to go after someone, they use not just a violation, they use FIBA as their mechanism.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: And I think that they feel like their enforcement cases are going

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: to be easier and their enforcement is going to be better if this passes and the two are aligned. That's why I think, in other words, we passed the law last year, we were saying, here's your rights, Department of Labor, pass regulations, do this, employers, do this, but FEPA is what defines kind of employee rights and is used for enforcement purposes. So, that's what I think is going on here, it's going to help the enforcement. Thoughts before we

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And it doesn't cost any money. That's always nice.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's always nice, yeah, right.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Or change, like, it's not like, there's no secrets in it.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, no, it's the kind of thing that's probably, I'm supportive of this, I think this is a good thing for us to do. But is there any final comments before we vote? Does anyone know the reason for the Senate changes of language?

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: No. Has I this and they adjusted it to something else? I don't know.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's part of a larger bill. All I'm

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: a larger bill, and I don't know how they operate, like, how they do their like, I don't know what happened. They approached me because it was my bill. Maybe they go into it. I have no idea. Again, if we vote on this and vote this out, we're gonna get that anyway if we end up figuring out, you know, that you like that language better and we wanna use that. I don't know the it's pretty minor. I don't know what it is, but that's all I'm saying. Like, we can

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: We'll follow it up. Yeah. Sure. You won't. Look at that.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: It's in their omnibus bill, I don't know the number of it, but it has multiple labor things in it. So I was just concerned that if we I'd like to also just be responsible for again, it's not a technical correction, but I'm calling it a fix because, again Well,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: also it's a pin in it for our committee, that it means that when the Senate bill comes back, we've got language that is gonna essentially enhances our position if we have a conference. What is that? In other words, if we have a conference and so, does everybody understand that when a Senate bill comes to us, which will start happening next week, alright? Our choice is either, you know, if it's just a bill that we had nothing on, then our choice is we can do the same thing we do with our other bills. We can leave it on the wall. We can change the wording. We can recommend that it be passed, etcetera. It's better for us if we have a vehicle of our own that's there, because it gives us leverage if we have to get to a time. But I don't know. Joe, did you find language?

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: No.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Figure out what they're on with this.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. I don't know if they're on this list.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Can I ask So a this would if we passed it out and it made it up before it goes to the Senate anyway?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Right. They could just be

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: like, They could

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: change it back to their old language. Or

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: they could just leave it on the wall and be like, we sent them our labor bill, they could take up that or not.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. And then when they send us their labor bill, we could put ours in, but one way or another, it comes down in the last moment to what you heard the other day. Do we recommend concurring with the Senate or do we request a conference committee?

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: That's our ultimate authority. And we haven't seen the rest of the Exactly. Measures in the House

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So, there's going to be

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: some back and forth, but in the

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: end, the end game lies with us always on labor bills. We can say, we concur with the senate or we've requested, we don't concur and we request a conference. Mean, very often Do you know can avoid

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: when their bill is getting to the floor? Mean, they have

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: to They have the same pros and cons. Yeah,

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I know right now, like Friday they have a vote I look because I'm a nerd. Friday, like, they have their housing bill. They have an economic because they also have economic development. So they have Yeah.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: They do

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: have a lot of that this Right. So it'll come to us either way, but there's multiple things in it. And I just wanted to do our own and take responsibility since the bill last year was what I introduced. So, I'm going to make a motion.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Sure.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: To approve draft 1.1 of h eight eighty seven. Can I get a second? So moved. Oh.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. We have a second. So this is on the floor. I do wanna add something to what I just said, which is just procedural, everybody. I said in the end, you know, there's all this back and forth, but in the end, I said, our choice is always, we either recommend concurrence with the Senate or we recommend a conference debate. Another option, which I didn't mention, which is frequently used, is we just sit down with the Senate. I sit down with the chair of the appropriate Senate committee, and we just work it out and agree on something, and then we come back and both bodies agree. That's also done all the time, but in the next couple of months, life is going to change. We're going to get all this stuff from the Senate and, you know, we can agree with what they do or not agree or have to keep it out or just tell them we're not interested. There are things that they will send to us if we won't do anything with them, vice versa. Do we have Ready to call. Are we ready to

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And then you have to assign it to someone because it will not

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: be

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: It's going to a committee and it's you. I already have, no, but I already have another one I have to do.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, well, too bad. Okay. Okay, now, still want to manage to

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: a vote? Yeah. You can always hope no. Oh,

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Madame

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: clerk, would you call the role?

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Representative Bartley? Essex? Essex? Representative Burrows? Aye. Aye. Yes. Representative Carlton? Yes. Representative Dodge? Yes. Representative Dalton? Yes. Representative Howard votes yes. Representative Krasnow? Yes. Representative Lamoille?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Saudia, you're called as to a vote.

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member, remote)]: Can't vote on this unless I you guys unless I can vote when I get there in ten minutes, but I can't vote on this because I think I already used my

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: two You think you used your three?

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I used two.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, we have three.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Don't think she has.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Doesn't she

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I have

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: her Yes.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: She has one.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We only have you having one. Why don't you vote, Saudia?

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member, remote)]: I only have okay. Then yes. Sorry.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: One day count. You can count well, twenty twenty

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: one day.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Right. I learned that.

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member, remote)]: Oh, okay. Okay. So then, yes. So this is my second well, no. Because I don't wanna use my second day. It's okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Saudia, are you voting? Or No.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Or should we Yes. Okay. Alright. Representative Parsons?

[Rep. Troy Hedrick (Bill Sponsor, House Corrections & Institutions)]: No. Strictly because I don't know. Alright. I'm gonna spend time with it.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: All good.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Seems fine.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: And representative Pezzo? Sorry. Essex. Representative Mihaly? Yes. Ways and Means. She's up Magnesium. In

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. She's up in Ways and Means.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Alright, what's our tally, Mary? Eight.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: One. Two.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And I guess, so I have to do the Nigel situation, and it'll be, I mean, it'll be up, but I gotta get ready. Yeah. I have the labor board one too. You can sign me also the labor board one.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. I know.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: That might who knows? But okay.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: So you are going to be the reporter?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Alright. So it was 812. Yes. And I'll do the

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: whole Is there someone on the committee who desires Oh, yeah. To report it to Would

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: anyone want some microphone time on the floor? No. He can't. He voted no.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: It's a lie.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And, Ashley, if you just sit here, she probably would have been should.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. But she's not

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: She's not here. How can we alright. No. I'm gonna do it. I'm just saying.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Alright. Fine. Try.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Alright. So I appreciate that.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: At this point, we are still on the fly trying to get testimony lined up. Have we had any progress till tomorrow. Okay, so we're gonna have an introduction at 01:00, and we're so gonna let's adjourn.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Thanks, everyone. Are we off live now?