Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: See who doesn't like that?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: We are

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: live. We are live. Alright. Good morning, everyone. It is Friday, March 27, 08:30AM, and we are hearing amendment on h seven seven two, an act relating to residential rental agreements, eviction procedures, and the creation of the positive rental payment credit reporting pilot program. And we have an amendment that we need to take a position on today. And we have the sponsor of the amendment with us, Representative Logan. How are you?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Sponsor)]: I am hanging in there. I hope you are all doing well. Representative Kate Nugent from Burlington. Thanks for having me in.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, table, yours. Tell us about the amendment.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Sponsor)]: All right. So the first section of the amendment seems like it's relevant to the House General and Housing Committee, and I'll be meeting with them at 9AM. The remainder of the amendment would enact charter changes for just cause eviction protections that have been passed by municipalities in the languages as introduced. Over the last several years, there have been multiple attempts to pass just cause eviction, charter changes in various rental dense, municipalities. And came pretty close one time. But the background conversation around just cause eviction has really centered on the lengthy time it's taking to get problem tenants evicted. And we had been provided some kind of I wouldn't quite call it a promise, but there was some indication that if we were to address landlords' concerns around the eviction process, that then there might be a statewide just cause eviction policy passed. It doesn't seem like that's the way that the state wants to go, but just cause eviction continues to be something that the residents of the city of Burlington want, along with other municipalities. And it really is crucial to our city. More than half of our residents are renters, unlike most of the state, where only 30% of Vermonters on average are renters. And, we have extraordinarily high rents. So most of the people living in rentals in Burlington pay more than 50% of their income for their rent. And, no cause evictions are one of the ways that landlords have, at their disposal in order to back up rent. They can evict somebody for no cause, increase the rent, and get tenants who can afford to pay it. There are all sorts of reasons why, the rental market is the way that it is in Burlington. But, it's just a matter of fact that we are experiencing rent costs in Burlington that are far, far above what is reasonable. And we need tools at our disposal. I know that my city would also love to be able to put some kind of rent control into place, but a rent control charter change seems even less plausible as, to pass here in the state house than a just cause charter change. And so given that we've got we're giving landlords a lot in h July, it seems like the entire laundry list of landlord requests is in this bill. And yet we have not seen movement for city the city of Burlington or any of the other municipalities who have passed just cause charter changes, to implement that policy at the state level or or to allow it, at the municipal level. So the amendment is just to ask that we finally allow the city of Burlington and other municipalities to implement our just cause, eviction policy at the local level, given that apparently landlords' concerns are being fully addressed in this bill, or pretty fully addressed. I mean, going back to the debate over just cause eviction that we've had over the last couple sessions, one of the things that we heard was that the problem that landlords were having was the length of time that it took to complete an eviction proceeding. And what we've heard in testimony in judiciary committee this session is that apparently landlords aren't experiencing that any longer. They didn't need they didn't request additional resources being given to the judiciary in order to, you know, speedily handle eviction cases. So it seems like we're giving giving away all of the all of the things that created, a balance that we've had between tenant and landlord rights over the last forty years without rebalancing by giving this protection to tenants at this time, even if it's just a mentally rental dense municipalities in the state.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Rutland, so I see a hand.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: So you had said that, that You're sorry, it's a little early. Okay, you had said that when we were having this discussion earlier, the conversation was that landlords need x y z in order for this to happen. Right? So my questions would be, how does this does 07/22 give those landlords those things?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Sponsor)]: Yeah. And then some. Yeah. Absolutely.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: So if it does, do you think it's a stepping stone for the next step, which is what you were told or what we talked about? I remember talking about this years ago. Is that the next step will be working out these other

[Rep. Kate Logan (Sponsor)]: I am not entirely sure why that wasn't part of the conversation. Okay. Yeah. Like, why are we supposed to vote yes on this if we have absolutely no indication that just cause eviction will be passed anytime soon.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: And you're going just on assurances from past conversations that this would lead to?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Sponsor)]: Well, no. Yes. I mean, that was part of the dialogue, right? That one of the reasons why we couldn't take it up was because we hadn't gotten to enumerate all of landlords' needs. But I'm not sure why landlords' needs need to be taken care of first. If we're immediately implementing, say, for example, a ninety day deadline to have a final hearing for an eviction, why can't we also have just cause eviction at the same time? It's a policy that's been passed twice now at the City Of Burlington level and twice for Winooski, Essex, Montpelier, one time each. But we've made it clear to the legislature as a city that this is something that we really need. I don't know. I'm not going to defend that need. Entire state, obviously, I think that it's the right thing to do for tenants. But it certainly is urgent for Burlington. It's an urgent tool that we've needed urgently for years at this point. So now we're being asked to wait another session?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: If I may, that that we're at crossover right now. Bill has a wife in the Senate.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Sponsor)]: Right. But it hasn't even been discussed here in the House. During a conversation about landlord and tenant rights, where we're told that tenants are being given assurances about how the eviction process is gonna go. I mean, I have a little bit more to say about that. But, yeah, no, it's striking to me that this is really a bill about landlords, you know, not about tenants.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. I do want to stay focused on the amendment itself and not that the bill is a total sum because that's what Any we're reviewing other questions from the table for Representative Logan Before we shift to council.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. We

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: have two councils who

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: would like to start. Perhaps

[Rep. Kate Logan (Sponsor)]: Thank you, Cameron and Tucker, for all of your thoughtful developments.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Well,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: the hardship and not the nature.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. It helps me stay focused.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. We'll do it.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Good morning, sirs.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Morning. For the record, Cameron Wood, legislative counsel. And Tucker Anderson, office of legislative counsel. Walk through a proposed amendment to H772. Just sent a request. Okay, share screen. Good to me. Thank you. I'll walk through the first instance of amendment, and then potentially turn it over to Tucker here. So, the first instance, if you all recall from the floor debate, there is a section in the residential rental agreement chapter that governs security deposits. Currently, there is no cap on the amount that a landlord may charge for a security deposit. And the bill, as it was amended, so as it's currently up for third reading, would include a provision that caps the amount a landlord can charge for a security deposit to two months' rents on top of the first month's paid. And then it has additional provisions in there about how the landlord must pay half of the security deposit back to an individual if they're terminating the rental agreement because of so called no cause reasons because of the expiration of the rental agreement. For example, forty five days before that termination, the landlord has to provide half of the security deposit back. There was some concern about municipalities that already have ordinances regarding security deposits and ordinances that may be more restrictive in what a landlord is able to charge for a security deposit. So that is what the first instance of amendment here is intended to address. This is in section four thousand four and sixty one of that residential rental agreement chapter, so the section that's specifically dealing with security deposits. And as you can see in this subsection G, most of the language here already exists, which authorizes a municipality to adopt an ordinance to govern security deposits on dwellings. I think the concern is the next sentence here. The ordinance shall be supplemental to and not inconsistent with the minimum protections of the provisions of this section. The section doesn't speak to a minimum level of security deposit that, or I should say, a maximum amount of a security deposit that a landlord can charge. So there's really no conflict at this point for those municipalities that have adopted an ordinance to address that. However, given that the bill would include that maximum, there's a question about whether municipality that is stronger, has stronger limitations, would be inconsistent with what the statute would be moving forward. So this amendment would kind of break up that section and then add this language on line 11 to authorize a municipal ordinance to provide greater protection in the provisions of this section. That's the first instance of amendment. I will just comment quickly that the next three instances, the second, third, and fourth instance of amendments, as mentioned by the sponsor, would enact the charter changes for the cities of Burlington, Winooski, and Essex regarding the the language that was passed in those municipalities for, you know, quote, no cause fiction protection, for tenants. So I'm not going to walk through those line by line unless you all would find that to be helpful from us. So just commenting that is for Burlington, Winooski, and Essex in those three instances of amendment. And the last instance of amendment, the fifth, starting on page seven, would put in some standard language in Title 24 to authorize a municipality to have a vote of its voters to give the municipality the authority to regulate by ordinance the ability to limit evictions to just cause evictions. And here's where I'm going to have to rely on my patriot here to help in regards to municipal regulation authority, etcetera, but essentially allow the municipality without having to go through the charter change process moving forward to have a vote to give them the authority to then regulate. And it's got specific parameters in here that we can walk through about what just cause eviction is. But before I do that, anything to add? Yeah,

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I'll take a quick step back to some of the charter provisions because I know you're all intimately familiar with them because many of them have been discussed each session for the last four or five years. There are policy choices made with using the bills as introduced here. So first, for the city of Burlington charter amendments, you're looking at as introduced language that has been brought up three times in front of the general assembly. It uses the language largely that was passed by the voters of the city with some technical correction and reorganization to fit the Vermont statutes annotated. I flagged that because there was a version of the, Burlington city charter amendments related to just cause eviction that was negotiated between the chambers in 2021. It passed both parties, was vetoed by the governor, and failed on a veto override vote. This is not the language that was passed by the general assembly. This reverts back to the original language that came from the city of Burlington. We walked through that maybe a month ago, something like that. So if you have any questions about some of the provisions in there, some of the things the legislature can put right here, please feel free to bring it up. On page four, the, city Of Winooski charter amendments. Winooski has had a few different versions that have been discussed. This is the most recent version that was reintroduced in 2024, and it borrows the language from the City Of Burlington Charter amendment proposals. Town of Essex, page six into page seven. This is language that House government operations has only seen briefly one time. The reason being, from my understanding, is that this is a broad and general grant of authority. It has none of the criteria from the Winooski or the Burlington Charter amendments. It just grants the select board the authority to adopt an ordinance governing just cause of issuance. No procedural requirements, none of the same elements of the other charters.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Gotcha. So, they're inconsistent with their application.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: And you have memos from 2023, 2024 from the Town Select Board about why they chose to go in this direction as opposed to using the same language as Winooski and Burlington. There's a ghost in here that I'll quickly note as well, which is that there was discussion on the floor of the City Of Montpelier charter amendments. Those were never introduced. And looking back through, it was difficult to find materials on the city website. It was a petitioned charter change. So, the city council didn't produce any of the language that was passed in the city. And the charter packet was not properly, we'll say it wasn't received by any of the offices of the General Assembly. And I was out on a leave of absence. So I don't know why it was never introduced, but it wasn't. So it just took us longer to take that down, and that's why it's not here. Moving on to section 10 gs on page seven. I think you're all familiar with the opt in structures that exist in title 24. This is an opt in structure that allows either the legislative body of a municipality or the voters to bring a ballot item to authorize the legislative body to adopt a just cause eviction ordinance. So either have legislative body propose that this is going beyond the annual or special town meeting ballot or the voters can petition for a special or annual meeting vote to allow the legislative body to adopt a just cause eviction ordinance. Subject to rescission, just like other opt in votes, There's ballot language in here added in because in other instances in the past where the general assembly has had an interest in ensuring that, the way that the question is presented to the voters doesn't contain any political slant. This has been added in to ensure that the question is about whether the legislative body has authority to adopt eviction procedures, essentially. So one of the things that has been discussed ad nauseam is the way that the charter language is framed. It uses very specific language about protections for tenants instead of the procedures that govern evictions. That's the last thing that I have to note about the municipal law components of this. You'll note if you go through that general law piece at the end that the city of Winooski and city of Burlington charter language is right in here. Essentially, no changes to technical changes within the language, but ported right over so that the option that is given to every municipality in the state is to opt into the same ordinance authority that those two cities have in their charters. I'm just my eyes are scanning nine and ten towards the bottom of the

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: pages. See provide for a reasonable probationary period. I see limit unreasonable rent increases. And then on the final page, I see reasonable and adequate notice. Are those defined anywhere?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: They are not. And if you'll recall from the Burlington walkthrough, one of the things I noted is that those were the pieces that were subject to negotiation in this committee and between the chambers and that ultimately were changed in the version that was vetoed by the governor. So specifically, there was a concern about the reasonable probationary period. Ultimately, when this passed through, that was left in place. But the House passed a version that limited that to a maximum of one year probationary period.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you, Tucker. Questions from the table for counsel? Rep. Pinsonault.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: Full disclosure, I am a landlord. Unfortunately, I've been very lucky to have some very long term tenants. But my question is, and when Representative Logan mentioned that the deposit, 50% of the security deposit would have to be given back forty five days in advance?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: That is the language that's in the bill currently, if the termination is due to a no cause reason. So if terminating the rental agreement because the tenant has failed to pay rent, or you're terminating the rental agreement because the tenant has breached some term of the rental agreement, then you would not have to provide half of the security deposit back. But if you're terminating for another reason, such as the expiration of the rental agreement or for another no cause reason

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: I just wanted clarification on that, because I certainly want to

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: get back 50% of

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: the rent if it's going place in that application.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: And there is language. So this is in the underlying detail, the underlying section regarding security deposits. There is some language that would authorize the landlord in that instance to make deductions from the first half of the security deposit. So if you did the walk through, you noticed that there was some damage in the property, you could deduct that at that point in time. You would have to document it and give that information to the tenant as you're required to under current law.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: So then what protects the landlord after you've given them a just cause reason to and then they've you've given the 50% deposit back, they're angry at you, and then they destroy your property?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, keep in mind, if it's a just cause reason, if you're terminating because the individual is failing to pay rents, or you're terminating the rental agreement because the individual is breaching the material terms or doing some sort of activity that's threatening the health or safety of other people that's the language that's in the statute if you're terminating the rental agreement for one of those reasons, you are not required to give any of the security deposit back before the expiration of the termination notice ends. And then at that point, you're required to comply with the statute. So if the individual vacates the dwelling unit at the end of the termination notice period, you would be required to give them the security deposit back with whatever you have deducted that you're authorized to in statute.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: It would be helpful if you just go through in plain language what the exemptions to that are. I see they're on page nine. So, if a landlord wants to occupy a building with a family member, things like that, if you could just go through those briefly. So,

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: back up to page eight real quick. So, this is in the section that would give municipal authority if it was a move of the voters. And part of this says that for purpose of this section, Just Cause shall include tenants material breach of the rental agreement, violation of state statutes regarding their obligations, nonpayment of rents, failure to accept reasonable good faith terms. And then you have on page nine, under two and three, there are certain provisions that the ordinance must include. And so you have there on two a, they have to exclude from the definition of just cause the expiration of a rental agreement. So, again, this is kind of the key piece here. A landlord would not be allowed to terminate a rental agreement because of the expiration of a rental agreement under if a if a municipality moved in this direction. And then there are certain exemptions. So it would be owner occupied duplexes or triplexes, properties that are being withdrawn from the rental market, including being occupied by the owner or immediate family member as a primary residence, and properties that are in need of substantial renovations that preclude occupancy. So those are carve outs saying, in those instances, you can terminate the rental agreement for no cause. There has to be an exemption for that. The municipal ordinance would have to provide that exemption.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Waters Evans?

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: So just to clarify, this would if I am a landlord and I just don't feel like renewing your lease, I don't have to.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Under current law.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: And in the bill as it is currently before you on third reading.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: It allows a landlord to terminate a rental agreement without any reason. Yep. Other than the landlord doesn't want to continue renting to the individual in the unit.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: As long as the landlord provides, and the bill as it's currently on the floor requires 90 days notice. Right. So, you have to provide ninety days before the end of the written agreement, if you have it in writing. And if you no longer have a written agreement, then it's just ninety days from the date you provide the notice. That's what's called no cause evictions. The current bill authorizes that. The current statute authorizes. The time frames are different currently under current law. The bill makes it consistent at ninety days across the board. The charter amendments, and if a municipal entity were to vote to use this authority, if this amendment were to go into place, would remove that from a landlord's ability. So landlord would only be able to terminate a rental agreement if there was a just cause reason. And so what this would do though is, as was mentioned by the vice chair, there are a few exceptions. So if the landlord needs to occupy the place, then they don't need just cause. They could just terminate the rental agreement and occupy the premises. So there are a few exceptions there. But if the charters were going to effect excuse me or if this provision were to go into effect and a municipality were to take advantage of it and vote and then have ordinances in place, the municipality would be restricting a landlord from doing a no cause eviction.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: What is the current notification timeframes? Two

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: questions. Is the agreement in writing or is it not in writing? In writing. And second question, has the person lived there for less than two years or more than two years? Because depending on the answer to those two questions will depend on the time frame. The time frame could be thirty days, it could be sixty days, or it could be ninety days. Okay. So,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: there's variables there one month, two month, three months, right? And so, if this were to go into effect this proposal, would that impact current leases, current contracts? Is it retroactive? Is it only looking for? It was. Okay. So we would be gaining current contracts. Okay. Gotcha. I

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: hate to belabor this point, but because we spent a lot of time on general housing way back in the day, this is a familiar topic. We've discussed this for many, many years. Line six on page nine, owner occupied duplexes and triplexes. So the owner is in one of those units. Would this be an exemption because the owner lives there that the other one or two units could be withdrawn from the market or not?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: I believe that the exemption there, I am newer, I tenure here with the body, so I'm not as familiar with all of the conversations that have occurred in this space over the years. As far as I can tell, argument here is if you're in an owner occupied duplex or triplex, the owner is there. It's not the same as a I think what you would think of as a typical landlord situation, where somebody owns a separate building with multiple units with people living there because it's owner occupied, we're going to exclude that from this just cause limitation, going to allow the owner in that instance to do a no cause eviction if the owner feels that it's appropriate. So it's not even that the owner feels that they need to occupy the other unit or they want to take the other unit off the rental market. It's just saying, because of the unique nature of that environment where the owner is in one of those duplexes or one triplex because of I'm assuming the rationale is more because of the intimate nature of the setting where the owner is there, then you're going to exempt that. You see that also in the current termination notice period, where if it's a shared occupancy, where somebody is renting a room out of someone else's home, the termination period is significantly less. It's, I think, seven or ten days. And I think the bill that you have on the floor makes it a consistent ten days. So I think it's just recognizing that unique nature.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: That answers my question about the duplexes and the triplexes. And you just brought up another question for me now about renting a room in someone's house. Would these ordinances be able to extend to that type of a situation or not? Because you already sort of have a precedent here that if the owner is living in the dwelling, there could be a no cause termination. So I'm assuming the same thing would be the case of an individual renting a room in their home.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm reading the subsection B on line four. It talks about end unit rentals. So I think you have a similar exclusion in that event. Great. Thank you.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright. Any other questions for counsel?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: If I may You may, sir. I am going to vacate the room and go to my next committee.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I know you are on a clock, sir, and you are heavily booked this morning. So please, yes, no. We really appreciate the time.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: It's not a shout, for instance.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I shouted is. Good catch member. Good catch. Thank you. Let's strike. You're welcome, man. Alright, Katie. We do have to take a position on this. So this is language for items on our wall. I've always agreed that this is a conversation for statewide policy. This is a bill that still has a life in the Senate. I see these provisions kind of circumvent this committee's jurisdiction for charter approval, and that is larger conversation for a larger landlord tenant bill, which is the deal before. That's my opinion. Rep, Ward Evans, then I go.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Well, first, I have a question. I haven't seen a charter worked into an amendment, let alone several, or a bill, but I have not been here nearly as long as you have. So I was just wondering if this is a thing that happens.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I do not recall it's been something in It my

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: was curious to me. I mean, it makes me a little nervous that that's sitting president. But also, I feel about the whole situation, that aside, I feel a little torn. I think it's really important to protect renters. I know it's really tough out there. The thing that's giving me pause is the same thing that gave me pause when we talked about this several years ago, which is that I don't feel comfortable telling people who own property what they can do with it or not do with it. And it really I just feel that so that one part of it where that I was asking Ledge Council about earlier where you can't just do what you want with your own property, really. I don't know. That's the part that is a real sticking point.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Hango

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Coffin. So just from my experience on House General back in the day, and for four years, we talked about landlord tenant issues. And I truly believe that those conversations need to happen in that committee because they do such a deep dive into all of the intricacies of particular issue. And there are so many issues around it. I have seen in the eight years since I started there, the evolution of a better relationship for landlords and tenants. And I think we've come a long way, but we have a long way yet to go. I have a lot of sympathy for both sides of the equation, not having been a tenant in many years and never having been a landlord. I do see both sides. And I don't feel like this committee is the place to make that decision and draw the line in the sand. And like the ranking member here, I'm really uncomfortable about inserting charter language in another bill. Charters exist for a reason and charter changes exist for a reason. And I kinda like to keep those separate.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Rep Coffin. I was gonna head down the same road as the charter changes and adding them into a bill, and then forcing those charter changes. Essentially, they're wording the way it's been run down on an entire state for because of how one town decides two things.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Feel similarly that we haven't heard from these municipalities recently to guide this discussion and this decision. I also feel uncomfortable with opening up this question. Do all municipalities in the fifth instance of amendment via ordinance to pass through

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: the process?

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: And as a renter myself, I feel uncomfortable having different processes in each municipality that should really be a statewide consistency.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: I guess I have less of an issue with the process, but except that I think that this discussion just makes a lot more sense in the committee that deals with these issues more directly because they have a chance to talk about the impacts of all these policies on their goals. I feel like underneath this, there hasn't been enough discussion or that's the committee to discuss the impact of restricting the housing market in this way. My understanding is that rent control and things like that actually have led to gentrification and actually made it harder to increase housing stock in places. Burlington And has some of the most restrictive building codes in the whole state, and they are also dealing with the housing crisis in one of the worst ways. So I think those things need to be explored and vetted better before we decide to take that or to dip our toes into that part of the jurisdiction too much.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Anything else from the table? So, we do need to take a position on this. So, barring further comment, and sensing the tone of the table, we are going to do a straw poll. I am going to make a motion to find the amendment from representative Logan unfavorable. So an affirmative thumb is for an unfavorable position. Showing your thumbs unfavorable. Okay, so that's And then

[Rep. Kate Logan (Sponsor)]: Yep,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: yep, yep, nope, gotcha. So, 123456, eight, nine, nine, one, oh. And I will report the committee's position on it.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: I think he was asking what you asked.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright, committee, thank you so much for coming in early. That was a lot of pages to look at. I appreciate everyone coming in, and we'll see. We have nothing on the calendar today for committee work after this. So

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: it's