Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Good afternoon, folks. We have a couple of updates as well as we're gonna have a walk through of s one fifty seven on recovery residents bill from the Senate. First off, I think it was probably fairly predictable that the language that we sent over to on pre k, This is a pre k update to the house committee on education. Well, let's just say, I think some of you watched the testimony yesterday and saw that there were a number of questions. And I guess I would say that I didn't, or vice chair here and I, didn't really leave feeling like we were on the same page. Both in, I guess, what I would say in the underlying Intent? The underlying intent of making sure that pre K is part of the educational system. And we recognize that it has differences from the K to 12 piece of it, and that's the mixed delivery system. And really, the testimony that we took and the facts that we laid out for them, they do not feel like they have sufficient time to make the kind of what they consider sweeping changes that we were proposing. So we had a meeting at lunchtime. And the language that we have at the end of our proposal around needing information on the study to determine how to pay for it, whether it be a categorical aid, I remembered it. Categorical aid or waiting or some other method of paying for it. And the elements that we have in there, they're prepared to include in their overall Act 73 implementation bill. Our intent language, as well as another piece that the vice chair and I will work on that really lays out the intent that we are going to move towards a system that assures true universal access for kids who are eligible will be part of legislative intent. But honestly, did not feel like we could compromise on the elements of the bill, of the different language pieces that we had. So I made a decision that it was better not to mess with any of the elements of the pre K as opposed to sending what I thought would be a wrong message. So if it were going to pull back on universal access, for instance, or if it was going to pull back on access to or equal payments and things like that. So what, at least as far as I know, at 02:24 this afternoon. The language that will be in what comes out of the Ed Committee and then moves to ways and means will be the language that we had on the study, the elements for the study, and two pieces of intent language. And everything in between is going to have to wait for another day. But we're not giving up on it. And we're not sending a message that it's not important to have true access in all parts of the state. We just have to bide our time a little bit on that. So I wanted people to have that update and to not be surprised about that. And it's the way things go sometimes when you have joint jurisdiction over some issues. So that's that on pre K. We should still take a close look at the language when it comes our way. And we won't take possession of the bill, but we will do a flyover or drive by or whatever it's called. Okay? Yeah.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Can I ask a question?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Of course.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So going forward, thinking in terms of how the process, I mean, we don't know exactly how it's gonna go just yet, but if the state, if Vermont is gonna get behind the idea of changing the whole way that education is paid for, it almost seems like the system that we have presently where there's no responsibility on the part the state to actually provide pre K, it's just if you can find it, they will pay for it. So if a community chooses to opt in to providing or thinking about pre K, then the state is required to pay for it. But going forward, that's what's gonna go forward, I guess, Well, what

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we're saying right now is that the statute will stay the same as it is right now for this year, at least when it leaves the house. Unless, of course, somebody on their own wants to propose an amendment. Are able to do that. I'm just saying that it won't be the language that we sent over from our committees. So I really did not want to send a mixed message by rolling back some of this stuff and saying, well, it's okay here, but not here. And we can do this, but not that, because it was a package, the whole thing that we put together was a package. And we still remember the part of the language that we sent that has to do with the study. It still talks about equal payments, still talks about increasing access. And so we will also make those points to the Ways and Means Committee so that there isn't anything that's sort of like undone in that. And I think that that's important because we want to make sure that pre K is included in the total cost of education and not just this add on kind of thing that we think about somehow Yeah,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: so it strikes me that three or four years out, the idea that a community, it doesn't provide pre K and yet there are other communities around the state that are providing it. That's an incredible inequity. It strikes me the system isn't bearing what is, it seems like conundrum even for that it needs to be paid for question, which we heard about yesterday. It's a conundrum going forward. How do you even make sense out of that? Is the state gonna make sense of that?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's why I wasn't willing to give in on it, to compromise on the access. Because I don't think So your feeling

[Unidentified Committee Member]: is that the intent language will be strung up going forward to build the notion of equal access across the state.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're putting people on notice. Even though you don't see something in this bill right now, that this is the expectation. So it did not seem to we were not putting an unfunded mandate in this bill. If anybody's unclear about that when you're talking to your education people or they're talking to you about it, There was no unfunded mandate in our language. It did not go into effect until there was funding to support it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, that's the thing.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Right. But I think there was some confusion even among some of our members here. And that I want to be clear with people that that is not the case. The implementation dates did not go into effect until there was a funding system to support it. And the education chair had a difficult time with that. Yeah, okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Seemed to me like it was mixing up timelines. Sorry to interrupt here.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, no, you didn't interrupt. So they're up against a tight deadline. And I didn't want in the rush for something that was less than what it should be be included in a bill.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. Okay. Well, I just thank you.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: K. And it sounds like a positive in that it's the positive I'm taking is it's not just in the intent language that's expressing the intent, also in the language regarding the report. It's gathering the information, more information that will be needed to continue the conversation and support the process. What about the the language you brought in from that independent bill over on the senate side?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think they're gonna take that out, and they're gonna they're gonna act on the bill separately. We we obviously expressed our support for that because it was in the language that we sent. So

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Yeah. Good.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Any other questions about pre k before we move to I'll just, can I just say- Absolutely? Thank you for everybody's work on this. I do wanna say, like, your work was not for nothing. We gathered a lot of really good information, which is really good testimony that's gonna help us in the future as we continue to work on this. So just keep that in mind as you do through your work. As the people who are sitting in these seats next year will have an opportunity. Yeah, again. Okay. Katie, we're excited to take up s one fifty seven. We won't. I'm always excited to talk about something other than new LCF. We're moving on to BDH. We had Dale this morning, so we're diversifying. Yeah, it's good.

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, good afternoon. Keene McGill, Office of Legislative Counsel. I will pull up the Senate's as passed version.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: maybe just a tiny little bit of history. This bill took a different form when it was first introduced, and you have a companion bill to the bills introduced on your wall. A couple of years ago, you did some work on recovery residences, particularly with regard to when people can be exited immediately. And that language is set to sunset 07/01/2026. This language removes that sunset and makes some additions to the section. But that's just little There's been a lot of work on recovery residences in the past couple of Okay. So to jump in, the proposal in section one is to amend an existing definition section in title 18 in a chapter specific to substance use disorder, and that the definition of recovery residents be added to this section, to this chapter, to mean a shared living resident supporting individuals recovering from a substance use disorder that provides residents with peer support, assistance accessing support services and community resources for individuals recovering from substance use disorder. And then we have some renumbering, some technical changes, and that brings us to page two, section two. This is an existing section of law.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Question about definitions. Sorry. The support services, it seems like we use it sometimes as a term of art. I don't know if it's defined, it doesn't look like it's we have alphabetically. It doesn't look like it's defined. No.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's not defined.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Is that would you happen to know whether that's defined elsewhere in in statute?

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can't recall off the top of my head a specific definition of support services, but I imagine that support services look a little bit different depending on the context. Exactly what I said.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Support services for people with developmental disabilities are different than support services for people with substance use disorder. Depends Who are experiencing homelessness. Right. Yeah. I mean, it's the context of- it's I a don't think it's as much a term of art as more of a generic term. Thank you. And I have a question. So this is underlined. So is it changing what the current definition is?

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. I'm going to scroll down to where you have the current definition. I believe it's right now you have this definition of recovery residence. Means a shared living resident supporting persons recovering from substance use disorder, provides tenants with peer support and assistance accessing support services and community resources available to persons recovering from substance use disorders. I haven't checked it word for word, but I think it's pretty close to what you have in that new section. But you don't have tenants. But you don't have this Subdivision B, it's certified by the Department of Health as a VTAR affiliate instead. That language is gone, we're just not We're describing a recovery residence, but not in terms of certification in that definition.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. All right. That's the first question.

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So maybe I well, let me do the second sentence.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Second Yeah, I'm sorry. The second section.

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, no, I think this is good. But this is a different way of handling certification than what was in the bill as introduced. So let me just show you the next section and I can sort of verbally tell you how this is different from what was in the bill as introduced. So Section two is an existing section of law. It sets out the various services and programs that the Division of Substance Use Programs within the Health Department is responsible for. And so recovery residences is added to that list of services that the health department is responsible for. So the bill is introduced, design your wall has sort of a different way to handle certification. In the bill that was introduced, there was a whole section that was dedicated to certification and described all of the criteria that a recovery residents would need to meet for certification. So there were some parameters around what a certification program would look like. But the health department asked that instead of having this program built out in statute, to instead replace what was in the bill was introduced with these two sections. One, putting the definition of recovery residents into an existing chapter on substance use, and then amending this existing section of law. And this would give the department essentially flexibility to manage recovery residences in the manner they would like to administer a program on recovery residences. So it's a policy choice. It's sort of a matter of delegation of how prescriptive you want to be as a legislative body in crafting a program around certification, or whether you would like the health department to be responsible for recovery residences and craft any type of certification?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, think for people who maybe haven't followed the history of this, at one point, the health department didn't want to be, didn't want to have a responsibility to be recovery residences. And I'm actually appreciative. Brenda, there's a couple of cough drops right here, if that would be helpful right there. No, no, no. Okay. So this is a change, which is not negative, that they are thinking about this as the importance of recovery residences. Just wondering, and we had the language there two years ago because the health department wasn't prepared at that point in time to take on the responsibility for that. I guess I'm still wondering about whether or not we'd want to remove that as a to be to be that those should govern the department's determinations about I guess, I'm I'm getting into committee discussion. Whether the NARA recommendation should be because there's a whole national certification that's laid out, and I'm just wondering, maybe we should let you get through the gonna tell you,

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you don't have the whole puzzle in front

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of you. I know, we don't. I'm sorry, I'm jumping. This is me because I got other things going on. So why don't we let you just go through? Let's let you go through the whole thing.

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm gonna jump forward in the bill because I think this piece will be helpful. So I'm on page six, section five. So it's not just that we have this one line that says the health department is responsible for recovery residences, period. No guidelines. There's also this corresponding rulemaking section. So I want to bring your direction here or your attention here. So this says that by 09/01/2027, the Department of Health is to file an initial proposed rule for the purposes of establishing a voluntary recovery resident certification program. At a minimum, the rule shall require that a recovery resident seeking certification from the state comply with the certification standards of VTAR or another organization approved by the department and set forth data collection standards and reporting requirements for certified recovery residences, including data elements and frequency and requirements for annual reporting from the department to the general assembly that measure the program's effectiveness. So this envisions that there would be a certification program and that it would comply with VTAR and that there would be data collection. So this is maybe narrowed from what is in the bill is introduced in terms of having parameters in statute, but this is delegating. You're putting some parameters in place, but also saying, Department of Health, go forth and build out this program. And then Subsection B, the department completes rulemaking by 12/01/2018. Subsection B, the Department If the Department identifies the need for a fee to support the Voluntary Recovery Resident Certification Program, it is to first propose the fee to the General Assembly. And if the General Assembly chooses to enact it into law, may incorporate into the required role. Representative Bishop.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Are there anything in this bill or in discussion that you can share with us about going with this carrot approach, if you will, of voluntary certification. Is it a carrot to something else? Are you able to access funds that if you're not certified, you can't? Or are you accessing something at a higher fee?

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's no language to that effect in the bill, that there is a higher reimbursement rate for being certified in practice. That might be part of

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm just

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: wondering what the conversation

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: your rulemaking process Or

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I I know. I was wondering about the well, we can ask the department when they get here, 2028 seemed like an awfully long time to adopt rules for something that There are models know about. Right? It's not it's not like it's new new topics.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: They're pretty much already practicing.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Was, yeah. So I'm sure that there's a reason and well, it's better to have them to Yeah, explain got that too. I'm like, that seems like a

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: long time. So I'm gonna go backwards now. So now I'm coming back to section three. So this section three is in the chapter on landlord tenant obligations. And there's this subsection B. I want to say it was added two or three years ago. And it allows a recovery resident to immediately exit or transfer a resident if all of the following conditions are met. It might be worth your time to go through the existing law because there's a lot in it. First, residents has developed and adopted a residential agreement. And that agreement has to have a lot of components in it. So the agreement first, it would contain a written exit and transfer policy approved by VTAR or another certifying organization approved by the Department of Health. That an exit or transfer policy must address the length of time that a bed will be held in the event of a temporary removal. It must establish the criteria by which a resident can return to the recovery residence in the event of a temporary removal. And it also has to ensure that a resident's possessions will be held for not less than sixty days in the event of a permanent removal. Also in this agreement, it needs to explain the Recovery Residences Program rules and social standards. That's new language being proposed, this subdivision too. It must designate alternative housing arrangements for the resident in the event of an exit or transfer, including contingency plans when alternative housing arrangements are not available. It must describe the recovery resident's substance use policy, which shall exempt the use of a resident's valid prescription medication when used as prescribed. In Subdivision 5, I must indicate that by signing a residential agreement, a resident acknowledges that the recovery residence may cause the resident to be immediately exited or transferred to alternative housing if the resident violates the recovery residence's substance use policy, new language, or regularly refuses to engage in services or programming, or is charged with a criminal offense, or engages in theft or interferes with the recovery of other residents, or engages in acts of violence that threaten the health or safety of other residents, or new language, recovery resident staff or volunteers. So that's everything that's in the agreement. Other components before immediately exiting somebody. The recovery residence has obtained the resident's written consent to its residential agreement reaffirmed after seven days. The resident has to have violated that list that we just looked through, the substance use policy. They've regularly refused or engaged in services or program, are charged with a criminal offense, engage in theft, interfere with recovery of others, engage in active violence that threaten the health or safety of residents, staff or volunteers. And the recovery residence has provided or arranged for stabilization bed or other alternative temporary housing. So those are all the components that have to be met prior to immediately exiting somebody.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Can ask a question? So exiting is the term that I remember us using previously. But then in the section that you're referring to previously, it said removal. It was referring to the removal of the resident.

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I wonder if removal was temporary and exiting is permanent. We don't have definitions, but that would be my take on it. Temporary removal? Yeah, says temporary removal. And then permanent removal, I'm not sure what the difference is.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Just something that removal and exiting. Should think about that. Okay.

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page five. Relapse of a substance use disorder resulting in exiting a recovery residence shall not be deemed a cause of the residents on homelessness for the purpose of obtaining emergency housing. Downstairs, the Department of Children and Families did recommend removing this as it is no longer, I guess, part of the the program rules for emergency housing that somebody could be removed from this. The committee declined to make the change in the event that this once again is a programmatic requirement as part of an emergency housing program?

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Can you say that again?

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will try. Yes. Clear as mud, So DCF suggested through the health department that this subdivision to be struck because this ability under existing rules that they're operating under, the recovery residents having relapse or substance use disorder wouldn't be considered, you wouldn't be deemed to be the cause of your own homelessness under their rules. So they were saying it's not necessary anymore. Senate Health and Welfare went back and forth on this a bit. And in the end, they sort of landed that it's not hurting anything right now. And if this at some point were a requirement or part of the regulations for an emergency housing program, then this is more protective, having it there. You may come to a different conclusion.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. It used to be Representative Bishop, it was one of the items that disqualified you from if you caused your own homelessness, it disqualified you from emergency housing under the GA program previously. So this was our attempt two years ago to say, a relapse is something that is a chronic and lifelong is not a reason to say you've caused your own homelessness. And DCF is saying, well, we don't use that rule. That's not part of the rules anymore, which that's actually what stuck in my head when I first read that. I said like, oh yeah, it's not in September. It's not part of the rules. But I also understand it's not really hurting anything if somehow the rule would change in

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: the future. Peter's intent. Active language. Yeah.

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Subdivision three is the definition of recovery of residents. And now cross references the one we started with. The obvious difference being the required part of the definition had been certified. So now if we're just cross referencing the definition up above that doesn't use certification, that would apply to all recovery residences regardless of whether or not they're certified.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Need you to say that again.

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. So we have this definition of recovery residents. You see all the strike throughs, including strike through that recovery residents means that it's a certified organization. And instead we're saying that recovery residents has the same meaning as the definition that we looked at up above. The definition we looked at up above doesn't have a requirement that a recovery residents be certified. So by adopting that definition of recovery residence, this language that we looked at about exiting somebody applies to all recovery residences meeting that definition. And they wouldn't have to be certified because the certification language and the definition is no longer part of the definition. I understand

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: what you're saying. I'm trying to think back to when we passed this legislation, had intent that at some period of time that all recovery residences would be certified. So there's different levels of certification. And so that's just something to contemplate committee members about whether or not we're really okay with not having a requirement for certification at some point in time.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: But as written with respect to that language, it's providing a broader population with an increased level of protections. And that's the intent of redefining it here without the word certification, as we want to support a broader population of residents.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, I think what we should do, because this makeup of this committee has changed since we did the first bill. We'll have witnesses that were lining up that can explain to us the different levels of certification and what's involved with each. And you know, I think we'll we'll have to have some discussion about whether we think we want those protections to apply to everybody, but they could still apply to everybody if we included certification in the definition of a recovery residence. But it's a policy decision for us to make based upon availability and what's the status of where people are at now? What are people's intentions? At the time, we received testimony that the intent was moving towards certification of all, even, like I said, there's different levels of certification, but we'll hear testimony from the department. There's been a shift in the department's stance on this. And so that's a positive outcome and is something that we didn't have when had work on this topic two years ago. So landscape has changed and have to think about how that landscape has changed. And I think it's changed mostly for the good on that.

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Two more sort of notes on this section. So as I said at the beginning, this language that we just looked at, this subsection B with exit policy, is currently set to repeal. So this is the strike through that would make it permanent law. Also, the lead in language for this section starts so again, we're in landlord tenant law. It starts by saying, notwithstanding these sections, our recovery residents may. So this is saying that there are certain provisions of traditional landlord tenant law that don't apply to recovery residences. I flag that because my colleague Cameron Wood, who staffed housing, did a really nice job in the Senate of walking that committee through specifically what these provisions were and what were being exempted. I flag that in case you are interested in hearing from him. Also, I suspect based on what we heard downstairs that you will be asked to add at least one additional item to this list. So he might be helpful in understanding what that particular provision is and the policy implications around adding it to this list. So that's it. We made it through the rulemaking, and we have a 07/01/2026 effective date.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Do I well, So first off, do people have any other questions for Katie about what the bill sets? Okay. We are going to begin testimony on this bill tomorrow, says the whisper from my left. And I suspect, I'm not sure, have all of the witnesses now confirmed, Laurie? No? Okay. She had a great first. Okay. Okay. Because I heard from somebody else that Chad actually was planning on being here or being he just didn't let you know. So I believe that he is confirmed. And I don't know about break because they didn't talk to me about break. So he's planning on coming? Okay, so says Nick. So I would also like to, and I'm saying this mostly briefly, we would like to hear from people with lived experience, people who if they're if people can point to us, folks who have actually gone through the exiting process and then were welcomed back into the home or how they experienced the process. I think it's important for us to hear that. I have former representative Small talking in my right ear because I know that that was a It was a concern for all of us, but she particularly articulated that. And so we would like to see how if we're gonna make this permanent, we would like to see the impact on people who have experienced it, if that's possible. If you can talk to some of your folks, that would be great. And then touch base with Laurie. Are there so we have right now, we have have BDH testifying. We have the director of VTAR, and we have the director of the Vermont Foundation of Recovery and a recovery house. We have the person from Jenna's Promise, and we have legal aid. And like I said, I'd like to have some people with lived experience. So if there are other people that you want to hear from on this bill, just let me know. And Katie, you said you were referring to your colleague, Cameron Wood. Would you say again the So he was working with the housing committee. Nope, he was a little confused about that.

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is his topic of expertise. He was now coming into human health and welfare on behalf of another committee. Because this language in section three is in title nine, that's a title that he is more familiar with than I am. Is it section three? Yeah. And so he could give you more context about what provisions of landlord tenant law are currently exempted and existing law and explain the policy implications around that, as well as any new proposals to add new exemptions. He could help you understand that. Okay. All right.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So Laurie, we'll have to add Cameron Wood to the list of witnesses. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other thoughts about this bill that you'd like to hear from? And as the bill progresses, if they pop into your head or you have other people whispering in your ear, just let me know. Alright? Okay. So that's what we're we're gonna now sort of shift to member updates about what's happening downstairs in bills that we have in the Senate Health and Welfare Committee. So I know Esme has been down there, you've been down there, and Eric has been down there. Well, were talking, didn't you just say you were down there this morning?

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Oh, for sixteen, yeah, yeah, sorry.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I actually am not sure, it's really never great. You have rare disease advisory Oh, that was you. Oh, I'm sorry. Had the one that they, did you have the one that they pulled that DCF said that was no longer needed? Yes. Oh, the childcare one. The childcare one. Okay. Yeah. I remember there was some discussion down there. All right. So want to take So mine, there's chance. Taking testimony, I did the walk through last week with Katie and they're taking testimony next week. There's no questions or events. Okay. All right. That's good. And Eric, do you have any

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: From 660?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: From 660 and what they were talking about downstairs?

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: Just after walking on through it, like I said, they said they were going to put some more time into the bill and said they needed to put a little bit more work into it, whatever that looks like. Don't know. I think they're going to do what you had mentioned and just

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Program preventive services. Yeah. And

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: keep all the other allocations as is.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: I don't see them. But I've known them wrong more like than right. But I truly believe I can't think that they're gonna mess around with any of the funding that's already been allocated to the agencies that have been recommended for it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, all right, that sounds good. I think

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: that's my only concern. I don't care how they get it as long as they get it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. They happen to raise any questions about the pause in funding for next year? No. No? It's an unusual thing to do that. So I was just curious about that. Speaking of prevention, so the VDH folks have been hot to get us to have some testimony on prevention and they asked for more time. But we're good, we're good. We always

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: want you to come in. So

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it's all good. So we're going to have some prevention discussion and presentation. I know that they're anxious to change their minds about prevention. So it's all good. Jessica, Okay. I'm just going to check-in with you. Are there any other folks that you've I'm sorry, I'm switching back to 157, which you folks want to have testify or anything?

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think we have both on that. Mark, go ahead.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I know

[Keene McGill (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that they do also remind you of folks you heard from Recovery Day as well.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Great, okay. You for asking, appreciate it. So tomorrow we have testimony on S-one 150 do we have DCF confirmed on the We have Deputy Commissioner Nike, and Zubair and then Dan Senay. Okay. So that's on S-two 39, and that's on the reporting bill from the Senate Act Relating to Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Working Group. We have them in the morning, and then we have the 157 folks. And then after the floor, after we gavel out of the floor, which I don't we're not gonna have a big agenda tomorrow, but we are gonna be having a compass of the whole on education after the floor. We just got a notice about that. Popped up on my email. So I think that's an update on education. So be interesting how we hear about the work that our committee has done. We have scheduled Helen over 02:30. That'll be, I think that'll be okay. I think that'll be okay. We might. Yeah, yeah. Do have Helen Levy coming in to, she represents the residential care and nursing facilities. And so she's coming in to offer their perspective about some of the things that we heard today from Diva and Dale, and they have data that they've been collecting from their members. So that will help us to round out that picture a little bit. So that would be tomorrow's agenda. And just a reminder, I won't be here in the afternoon tomorrow. So you've Try to keep it. Yeah, okay. So you have the rest of the next hour or so to work on constituent work or other research relating to the bills that we have popping around. Laurie, you have anything else that we should know about? You're good. All right.