It is the, no Thursday morning meeting of the House Appropriations Committee at September 17. And we are going to start by working on our first bill, which is S 352. We have Representative Kimball here to walk through some of the decisions made by the House Commerce Committee. We also have Ledge Council present and we have a JFO present. Welcome Damien and Chloe, glad to have you. And we also have Representative Jerome from the committee. You can chime in on this bill, but I know you're doing 353, which we will follow with. So let's jump right into this, Charlie. If you want to do the, are you walking through the bill or would you like Damien to walk through it? Do you have some opening comments? How do you want to, this is, you tell us how you'd like to proceed. Sure, I'd love to provide an opening comment and then let Damien walk through the language as I don't have it on the screen. Damien, is that okay with you? And acknowledge that Stephanie has the harder of the two bills, which is wonderful. So S 352, this, I believe we're just looking at the amendment coming from me and other members of the Commerce Committee, not an official amendment from the committee because we do not have possession of the bill. And so we are further providing clarification on the technical amendment to include some people that were not included. Number one is the traveling nurses that are operating in facilities that are considered to be hazardous. We'd wanted those traveling nurses to be included in hazard pay, not excluded from that. That is the first part. And that results in some renumbering of the sections of the bill. So you'll see that as Damien goes through it. The second is that the program as it was designed said that employers may identify employees that worked for in a hazardous job and a job and be eligible for hazardous pay, but they're no longer employed at that employer. So we substituted the May for a shall saying that we wanted employers to be required to identify employees that had worked in that capacity, but were no longer working there. So they would be eligible for hazardous pay as well because we thought there was the opportunity for some employers to say, and I don't really want to bother with that. And then the last real change in this, those are really the major changes. And then it's throughout the rest of the amendment as to how that flows through. And that's kind of the introduction as to what we had discussed. Thank you, Charlie. Charlie, we have possession of this bill now. Did it go to commerce first? It went to commerce. We passed it. And then it was referred to health and human services. Okay. And Teresa, we have it now. Is that correct? Or does health and human services still have it? That's correct. I don't, Diane, I'm seeing online that S353 is still in commerce. Do you know if that was flipped to us? I thought when we looked at yesterday's, when they made the motion on the floor yesterday. Both of them came, right? Both of them came to us, both of them. Okay, that's okay. So Charlie, when you had the bill, your committee didn't amend it when you had possession of it? We did not. We wanted to facilitate its transfer over to human services. So May, let me see what is yesterday's. Yep, well, yep, both of them. Thank you, Diane. Thank you. And the reason why Madam Chair, is there was a portion on there that they added as an amendment in the Senate, which added $12 million and some clarification around childcare, making hazard pay available for childcare workers. So we did not want to- And that's why it went to human services. Exactly. Okay. And so Damien, if we pull up the bill, I want to go through more than the amendment because we want to fully understand the $12 million for the childcare services too, please. Kitty? Yes. I did have a question regarding one of the amendments. Peter, I didn't see your hand. I'm sorry. Go ahead. That's okay. It's regarding the traveling nurse piece. As I understand it, and Charlie, you can help me better understand this. The traveling agencies take a percentage of what the employee earns right off the top. So would the traveling agencies thus keep a percentage of the hazard pay that their employees would be eligible for? Because it's just more money that the employees earning. Thank you, Peter. My understanding of the program is similar to how contracted services providing janitorial or food services to facilities is that we're really talking about direct payment to the employees and that the agencies do not get to keep any of the share of that. So there's no commission off the top, no processing. And we're really talking about not even what the agency may charge for that employee because they may charge $50 when they're only paying them 25. We're talking those eligible employees are based on what they're paid, not on what the agency may be charging. Got you. Thank you. Thank you, Charlie. David, I see we have just the amendment in front of us, which I would like to walk through, but I think the underlying bill we need an understanding of the 12 million for childcare and the position of house human services. Yeah, so I can, if you make me a co-host, Teresa, I can share that on the screen with everyone. Thank you. There you go, Damian. And we have this bill scheduled until 9.45 and then at 9.45 or before we will pick up at 3.53. Okay, thank you, Damian. Let's do the bill and then we'll walk through the amendment. Sounds good. So the bill here, what it did is it basically went back to Act 136 and amended the underlying hazard pay program. So the first change is adding two and a half million dollars to cover the cost of the expanded eligibility through the technical corrections. And then the next change here was with the homeless shelters. The understanding when it had passed the legislature was that either the homeless shelter or provider of necessities to a disadvantaged population would cover the hotels and motels that were contracting with the state to house the homeless. The agency human services have a different interpretation. And so we clarified the language in here to make it clear that that was the intent of the legislature here. So this would just include the lodging establishments that provided housing to the homeless pursuant to an agreement with DCF. The next changes here, which representative Kimball mentioned were for the contractual cleaning and janitorial services and food service providers that provide cleaning or food services to healthcare facilities and residential care facilities. And it's with respect to the employees in those facilities. So those were the expansions from the Senate side. The changes here were on the elevated risk language. On reading through it with fresh eyes after a little time off, I realized that we frequently referred to members of the public or clients, although we didn't do so consistently, but we didn't refer to patients for residents. And most of the facilities were healthcare or residential care. So that was an omission. So this clarifies that. To my understanding, this has not affected the eligibility of people in the initial program, but this is more just cleaning it up to make it clear and consistent. One of the things that the Senate also added was the regularly cleaning or sanitizing the premises of a covered employer in a location that is regularly used by individuals who may be infected with the virus, but who are known or suspected COVID-19 patients. And this was to be important for particularly folks working in a residential care facility where you don't have a known outbreak yet or folks who are working in the hospital. And for example, the emergency room or an urgent care facility where people may come in with symptoms and you don't know if they have the virus and you don't even know enough to suspect that they have the virus yet, but their cleaning and janitorial staff are working hard to make sure that if they do, it's not being spread to other people in the facility. Thank you. Okay, are there questions on any of those? I'm not seeing questions, but then I'm not, let me see if we have any questions yet. I don't have any yet, Damien, so let's continue. Okay. The next change here, we have the issue of ongoing community transmission. And this is transmission where there is not a known source for the virus. Vermont was an area with ongoing community transmission for about a month of the eligible period, but we also have facilities that had ongoing community transmission at other points in the period. And we just wanted to, again, make sure that this was covering everyone, that you didn't have someone who was inadvertently excluded. There's a lot of overlap between these different requirements for elevated risk. So there's a good chance that if someone qualifies under one, they'll qualify under one or two others as well. I think I might have seen a question. Let me see. I don't, Mary, do you have your hand up?  I don't see any Damien. Okay, great. I saw something flash up on my screen momentarily. It was me scratching my nose, I think. That was Katie coming in, Katie McClendon is here. Oh, okay, great. So the next piece with the eligible employee language, this was very much my drafting error. When this bill started, it was a present tense third pay bill. By the end of June, the entire eligible period was behind us. And I forgot to change the language in most of the eligible employee sections to reflect people who were employed during the eligible period. And so instead it was read as current employees. So what we ended up with is that some individuals who are employed in the eligible period working in one of these jobs, but then switched jobs or were laid off after the period ended were excluded from receiving the hazard pay because they were no longer currently employed by the employer. And we'll get to how we're going to get them grant money in just a few minutes. But that's what these changes do is they open it up to those individuals who performed the eligible work during that period but then jobs or were laid off. And so we're no longer directly employed by the employers who are filing for the grants. Okay, so the next change here, we've struck out the exclusion for individuals who are independent contractors or self-employed in this section, because again with that issue for individuals who were formerly employed, some of them may now be working as an independent contractor or self-employed. So instead what we've done is provided that hours of work performed as an independent contractor or sole proprietor don't count towards the award. So yeah, so for example, you work as a nurse for your day job but then as a part-time side job you work as an independent contractor providing home care services to people. You could count your day job where you're working as a nurse in a healthcare facility but not the second where you're working as an independent contractor. So this is just clarifying that requirement here and trying to avoid inadvertently excluding someone who may currently be an independent contractor or may have had us a second employment as an independent contractor. Does that make sense? So Damien, can you move up a little bit? So they were excluded originally from the bill? They were with the way the language was originally. I'm not sure that the- Where does it, where's the exclusion start? Oh, okay. So it says eligible employee does not include an independent contractor or self-employed individual. And now we're just saying an individual who received unemployment insurance benefits during the eligible period. And the reason for the unemployment exclusion was because they, if you received unemployment during that period, you were getting the $600 a week enhancement. So the feeling was that those folks had had already received additional money. And this was meant to be in part showing sort of gratitude or something or appreciation for folks who stayed on the job in hazardous positions that are not the best positions out there. But eligible employees, independent contractors who fit the example that you stated, they would now be eligible. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Dave? Sorry, just wanted to unmute. Just I'm on the unemployment piece. Our local hospital laid some people off for one week. One week. And they all went back to work during the duration of the period. So what's the thinking behind that here? So they received pay for a week, it was enhanced. They're not gonna collect for that week, but shouldn't they be allowed to collect hazard pay for the rest of the duration? Can the committee speak to that? Yeah, this is really a policy call for you. This was a decision that was made in the early on because of concerns about that additional unemployment providing almost a disincentive to continue at work now that we had some good cause quit reasons related to COVID-19, where people could say, you know, my kids are out of school so I'm gonna leave my job and take enhanced unemployment. But this is now that we're looking back at this with hindsight, this is a policy call for the committee whether this is still appropriate. So... Did they discuss it? Damien, or did they just... This was discussed back- Because it does seem if I meet the hour requirement, work more than 58 hours and I'm out for just a short period, doesn't seem fair to me. Is it for bureaucratic reasons? Apparently not. You're saying the committee felt they received an enhancement, thereby they shouldn't receive any additional regardless how limited the enhancement was. Can Charlie speak to this? Yeah, I can't to the extent that I have a comprehension of it, David. And I think the reason why is at the time we were also looking at some of the interpretation as a CRF monies and where we could use them, where we couldn't, where you could have a duplication of benefits. As we look at the business programs, we were considering at the same time, whether or not you could receive funds from one grant source and another grant source at the same time. So this was in my memory, maybe Stephanie remembers more, that we were trying to interpret that as somebody double dipping essentially into that same pool of funds for coronavirus relief funds. And that was really the intent at the time, not anticipating that someone would be laid off for only one week. So I have heard as well as one person being laid off for only one week during that whole period and then not being eligible for any kind of hazard pay because of that. But we didn't know how widespread that would be and I think that's where we had come with that. We did not revisit this particular part in our committee in the last month. So we're pretty much in the current language. It's in the current language, yes. So we did not look to amend that. Dave, do you have a follow up question? And could we now or is it just, what was that Katie, were you talking to me? I just said, did you have a follow up and you're following up, yes. Yeah, thank you. So it sounds like logistically, we're in some kind of a timeframe box here. There's no desire to revisit that policy issue. I mean, could we say who has received unemployment benefits for more than four weeks or something like that just to recognize it? But I'm not gonna push this at this time any further other than to just wonder, because it wasn't revisited since you received it, does it make sense to revisit it again or am I just, am I chasing something that's not doable? Thank you, Madam Chair. I have Mary and then Chip. I think Dave's raising an important question here. And I'm guessing that this is an inadvertent omission, just given the progress of this bill over time. So I'm not sure we should let go of it, although I am very cognizant of time, trading this bill back and forth with the Senate and needing to get it done. But let's don't stop thinking about this yet. Just to add some context, the Senate was cognizant of this exclusion both in the spring and when they took the bill back up again in this form with S 352. And they did discuss in Senate appropriations whether that was still appropriate to have this and decided to leave it in. But there are various options on this, but it's all going to be a question of where you wanna draw the line. So you could, for example, say benefits for then one or two weeks during the eligible period to capture some of the folks who were laid off for a week, but otherwise worked, or you could strike it all together. But I think no matter what you do, short of striking it all together, you'll end up excluding some people. And the question is, is there an appropriate line to draw? And I don't know if this factors into the estimate that Chloe and Joyce prepared. Chloe could probably weigh in on that more, but that's something else to be cognizant of. Right now there's a $7 million gap when you combine S 352 and 353 between what the house is appropriated and what the actual cost is. Dakin, is there, I do, if hospitals laid individuals off for a single week, are there federal dollars that hospitals received that they could compensate those workers for any of this hardship? I mean, I've heard that hospitals have done some compensation of certain workers. And do we know if this group happens to be one if they were laid off and then brought right back on? So I don't know, and I don't know about the funding we provided to hospitals with the federal dollars. That would really be probably more of a question for Jen Carby, although the folks from JFO might know too. But yeah, I just, I unfortunately can't really speak to that. I know this is one stream that hospitals can use to get hazard paid individuals. I just don't know if they're providing any sort of additional paid individuals who are excluded from this, but we're performing the same kind of work or even whether the money we provided can be used for that. And this doesn't need to be the end of the conversation because the Joint Fiscal Committee, based on recommendations, will be looking at any additional CRF monies that have not gone out the door and to understand what this, how many would be within this group of individuals and how not to double dip because we can't, according to the federal guidance, they can't receive both benefits. It may need more time and could ultimately be a later discussion if it's a priority from the legislature. Chip? Thank you. So I'm trying to react to the last thing that you said as well. I guess I would just say that I think Dave's raised an important point and whether, and one of the questions is whether or not there are other folks, you know, numbers of other folks who fall into the same category. Is it, was it really just hospitals or a hospital that laid off people for a week or are there other categories of people that were laid off that we really need to try to address? All of that leads me to think that I would really love to see our commerce committee dig into this a little bit more and make a recommendation. But I know that the timing issue is one we're gonna have to deal with. And so whether or not we address that through JFC or try to do something in legislation that I might have to leave the people who understand the timeline better than I do. But I would agree with Mary. I don't wanna drop this issue. It seems like one that we need to think about how we're going to address because it does seem patently unfair to me that if people were laid off, sent solo for a week, that they wouldn't then be eligible for these benefits we're trying to provide to others. And so moving forward in knowing the time constraints, Charlie and Stephanie, is this something that your committee would continue to try to dig into? So that, I mean, we would have to know what the costs are to this, how big is this group? How do we make sure that they don't get the benefit for unemployment and for hazard pay? And we need a fiscal note on this. Is this something that you would consider digging into and providing feedback if we could use the route of the Joint Fiscal Committee? Yeah, I can't speak for the whole committee, but it does make sense to first determine as to how many people could be affected by this. We could talk to the agency of human services that has been administering the hazard pay program to see in their process, how often they've come across this as well to see if there's any way to determine that. And knowing that time is of the essence is to figure out how long it would take us to determine that. I don't know, and we'll try to see about with Joint Fiscal. Yeah, because if we can create at least the opportunity, because right now you would be prevented from, I believe in Joint Fiscal Committee from applying, appropriating money to folks that don't fall into the definition. So if we can at least expand the definition, then that gives you the ability to do that down the road. So yeah, we can discuss the committee this morning. Okay, Mary? I'd be reluctant to take action in this bill that may expand the financial obligation without understanding it. I think it would be interesting if the relevant committees dug into the issue and we could have other vehicles for solving the problem. Maybe not just JFC, but there are going to be other vehicles coming through here where we could take care of language issues as well as understanding the impact. So we need to get this out of committee and I think there are other ways to address it. Including the budget that we have a lot of related CRF. Yeah, that's what I was thinking, yeah. Stephanie? Just a reminder, so this bill goes, expense is for the period mid-March to mid-May. So it would be interesting to find out when these layoffs happened at the hospitals and if they happened during this period, time period or after, as I recall, the layoffs were happening sort of towards the end of the initial crisis. And then also just a reminder that so people were laid off, they were able to receive the $600 additional benefits from unemployment insurance. So just a couple of things I think we should keep in mind when we're looking at this a little further. Thank you, Stephanie, for that clarification. If there's no other questions, I do, and we continue to move on. I don't see any other questions. And so Damian, do you wanna continue? Certainly. So the, we'd already talked about the hours worked as an independent contractor, sole proprietor. And so this is going to be three A and B here. This language changes in the commerce report. What this was was a holdover from earlier language where for former employees, the employer filed the grant and then the state basically said there's a check and they would have to, they were automatically enrolled and would have to decline for a variety of reasons, including that the employer may not know if they collected unemployment during the eligible period, if they left after, say you worked four weeks at full time and then left the employer, perhaps they collected unemployment during the period or were otherwise disqualified for some reason. So this is taken out by the House Commerce Committee because there's no reason for them to elect not to receive the hazard pay if they might be filing an application for the grant anyway. That's kind of their election to opt in rather than opt out. I think I made that a little more jumbled than it needed to be, the program is opt in. So there's no reason for them to be informed that they can elect to opt out. This is another issue that Charlie has talked about. Damian, I just wanted to see if everyone was clear on three A and B. I do not see any questions. So let's continue seven. Yep, so this is language, the Senate passed language that said the covered employers may identify potentially eligible employees who are no longer employed. The House Commerce changes to shall. The Senate discussion, and of course, I can't speak for all of the senators but what was discussed in the discussion were, for example, folks who were dismissed for, and so they were giving discretion to the employer to determine whether or not to identify former employees. The House Commerce Committee has changed that to shall that you don't have an issue with employers who say, for example, I didn't like those employees or I'm angry because they left for a job with better pay and so I'm not gonna identify them. So this makes the House would make this obligatory for the employers. It was optional on the Senate version. So this is the way the Senate ended up structuring the program to contact former employees, which the House has largely kept. And so it's basically the program, once they get the contact information for a former employee will reach up to them, notify them that they may be eligible to obtain a grant. And then, again, the may elect to decline has just been changed to shall inform them that they're not required to apply for the grant. And this gets back to the benefits cliff issue that we discussed in the spring where some folks may choose not to apply for a grant because of tax or benefit implications where either their marginal tax rate will jump a bracket or where they may more likely reach a benefits cliff for something that's important for their family. We've done everything we can in the bill to try to avoid benefits cliff issues, but to the extent that there may still be a benefits cliff issue out there, this gives people the option. And then the grants go out direct from the program as if they were a regular state grant, folks will get a 1099 miscellaneous at the end of the year. The state does not withhold taxes from us. So they're going to be provided with written notice that the grant may be subject income tax. And then the final piece here is because we, the state has to do 1099s. There's some personally identifiable information here, particularly social security numbers that is going to be collected and may be collected by contractors working with the state. So this requires it to be kept confidential and makes it exempt under the Public Records Act. It is likely exempt under the Public Records Act already, but this is spenders. And then section two, are there any questions on section one before I move on? I am not seeing any hands. Great, so section two requires the program to reach out to employers who have already applied for a grant. The Senate version said that they may identify potentially eligible employees. Again, the Commerce Committee has changed that to request that they identify potentially eligible employees who are no longer employed by them to be consistent with the shall language that they added previously. And then- Damien, I am confused here a bit. The amendment that is before us to Charlie, the first page of the amendment, have those changes already been reflected? In what you're showing us? No, unfortunately, this is what passed the Senate. Okay. And the House Commerce Amendment hasn't been voted on yet. So I mean, it's left their committee, but it hasn't been voted on on the floor. So I don't have a merged version of those bills yet. The next piece was not changed in the Commerce Committee. And Katie is really better to talk to this piece. This is the childcare piece. So Katie, are you still with us? I am. Great. If you just tell me where to go, I'll scroll there. Sure. Let me just start with a reminder of what this language was. This section amends part of the human services and healthcare CFR bill that was passed in June. There was originally 12 million that was appropriated for three different purposes. And Damien, if you don't mind scrolling down. So you'll see in the existing languages, the three purposes were the restart grants, the parent child centers, and for children's integrated services. So what this amendment does is it adds an additional category that the 12 million can be used for. And that's a prospective payment to staff employed at childcare programs, regulated by the Department for Children and Families. And I'm not sure what the committee plans to do today, but human services has since passed an additional amendment that would remove this language and subdivision B and it changes it a bit. It changes it in two ways. First, the phrase childcare programs regulated by DCF. The more that kind of percolated on that, it was a pretty broad term and it could pull in the employees working at hubs, which was not the original intent coming over from the Senate. So the human services committee decided to be specific and replace childcare programs with family childcare homes and center-based childcare programs and preschools. So that was one change. And then another change when we were walking through this in human services, I recognized that this language that was in the Senate draft was from an earlier amendment I had drafted and not the final amendment I had drafted for the Senate Committee on Appropriations. So the human services committee made that correction to use the amendment that the Senate appropriations had meant to offer. And what that amendment does is use the language instead of prospective hazard pay grant program, prospective workforce stabilization program. And it also has a phrase that ties in that this money is in recognition that person serving and childcare facilities moving forward are exposed to an elevated risk of COVID. So it ties it back into the risk of contracting COVID. And then do you want to scroll down? Sure. Please. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm muted. Are there any questions on the pieces that have been over that have been changed by Health Human Services? Okay. Katie, let's continue. So that's the end of the version that came over from the Senate. If you'd like, we can pull down this document and I can pull up the human services amendments. You can take a look at that because they also strike through what you're looking at on your screen right now is subsection B. Human Services has struck through that language and they have a new subsection B that basically says, would you like me to pull that up? Please. Yes. All right, Katie, I made you co-host. Thank you. Okay. So at some point, I need to walk through what's original, what got amended, what additional asks for amendments are still on the table. I just want to make sure I know who is proposing what amendments and what's coming from house appropriations. So let's just continue with being as amended by Health Human Services. They have, they amended sub B and now they've also sub capital B, changing the wording of the childcare programs. And did they have two instances of amendment, Katie? They did. I'm trying, I pulled up the wrong document. I'm pulling up the correct document now. Okay. So this is the second one for two B. Correct. Thank you at the very end. Okay. Now I have the right document. Right. Let me see if I can share it. Okay. So the first instance of amendment is what I just talked you through. So you'll see here on line nine, we have the language perspective, workforce stabilization program, staff employed at family childcare homes and center-based programs, instead of that more generic childcare programs. And then we have language 11 and 12 that has that tie in with COVID. And then the second instance of amendment, as you see we're striking through the existing subsection B, which really has to do with reporting on appropriations no later than August 18th, 2020. So at this point that language is a little bit irrelevant anyway. And now the new language has a lot of cross-references. So maybe I'll just describe it more colloquially. Basically what this is saying is that any appropriations made pursuant to the new subdivision B on workforce stabilization cannot occur until all the allowable expenses from all the other subdivisions in that section, meaning the restart grant CIS and PCCs, have been allocated. So first allocate what you meant to use the money for back in June. And once that has occurred, then there can be an appropriation pursuant to the new language for the workforce stabilization program. Okay, we have a question from Diane. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know, do we have this document? This is not one that I have, I think. This has got a 4-4 at the end. I can make sure that Teresa has it. This is- Yeah, we have the one for that amendment to S-352 that's coming from basically commerce. We don't have this one that's coming from human services. Okay, I'll make sure that Teresa has a copy. I'll send it to her right now. Okay, so what we have before us, I believe if I have this correct, we have S-352 as amended by House Human Services. And Charlie, your committee has suggestions for amendments, is that Teresa? Can I have a full screen so I can see everybody? Thank you. And Charlie, in your amendment, are you going to offer on the floor? Yeah, from me and others and the members of the Commerce Committee. So we're trying to amend the report then really coming out of House Human Services, correct? Do I have that procedure right? I think that's right. So what our committee is going to consider is the amendment. We're going to consider the Senate Bill as amended by House Human Services and further amended by a group of representatives from the Commerce Committee. You got it. That will be offered on the floor. Okay. Yeah. Okay, so the bill will not be further amended by anyone from Commerce. That will be a separate position that we take. That will be determined on the floor if that becomes part of the bill. Do I have that procedure correct? Yeah, that's what I'm trying to, yeah. That I just lost. I'm trying to make sure that I get the wording right that what we're voting on eventually is S352 as amended by the House Human Services and then we'll take a position on an amendment further amending the House Human Services by the members of Commerce. Yeah, right. That's how I understand it. Okay. And my next question is then the 2.5 million for the expanded eligibility and technical corrections in this bill. Charlie, does that cover everybody that is in your expanded language as well? Yes. So we met with Joint Fiscal Office and Chloe provided us with a spreadsheet and estimations that they had made based on different professions that were covered in there. So yes. So in the underlying bill, the 2.5 million covers any changes that you make to the language? Yes. Okay, thank you. Kimberly, Katie, I know that you have to go. Are there any final questions for Katie? She needs to leave for an appointment. Does anyone have any? Actually, this is somewhat relevant. If I could, Madam Chair, just jump in. Diane, I'm just listening to how you characterize it. And it is the case that Human Services amended S352 and they have one more piece that they inadvertently overlooked and they asked that appropriations add in one more piece. And that is the language that Katie first had up before she circled back to the Human Services. So there is one more step of amending along that path. And I don't know if we wanna have Katie cover that before she has to leave. Yes, we do. And do you have time, Katie, to quickly do the one, there's one further suggestion that we should bring to our committee to consider. Thank you. Yes, I'll pull it up. There we go. So this language shows you that subsection B again about the Perspective Workforce Stabilization Program. It strikes out Human Services version and it adds this new language. And what this does is it adds a category of childcare providers who would be eligible. So we still have Department Regulated Family Child Care homes and the surveys programs. And this adds after-school programs that are not otherwise serving as the school-age childcare hubs. So this language amends the Human Services Amendment and that one. So the to be, no, this is just subsection B was added and this is a recommendation to our committee that further amends their own amendment. Is that correct, Katie? Yes, I drafted this as an amendment coming from this committee. Yes, right. So I drafted it as an Appropriations Committee Amendment. Yes, because they had already passed out the bill, there was a group that was left out. And so this is an amendment that Kimberly has been working with the Committee of Jurisdiction on for us to consider to further amend the bill from house appropriations. Okay, are there to include the childcare centers and as Katie just related, are there any questions for Katie on this further amendment that Kimberly will propose for our committee to consider as our own amendment? Boy, we have a lot of amendments flying around here. Okay, Katie, I think we're set. Yeah, it's all gonna be about the wording and which one we do first, but I'm gonna try to keep it very simple, but I need Teresa to make sure I'm getting this right too. Okay, so Katie, I think you're good because I know you have a time crunch. So thank you very much for coming in. The first thing with S 352 is we have the Senate version of the bill before us that has been further amended by House Human Services. Are there questions for Damien on any of the pieces that he went over? We do have the one piece that they've brought up that Mary and Chip have both spoken to that we're going to ask for additional information and look for a different vehicle if it's an area that we need to go to. Are we all agreeing upon that piece? This due to timing that holding it for that piece, it may be, it will be better if we need to address it and should address it, we would find a different vehicle for it to travel on. Are we comfortable with that? I see one hand up, I see a couple. Dave or you, this was your concern. Okay, and we're going to ask the Commerce Committee to do some work on that. Linda, you will follow that. And Dave, I know it's important to you so make sure you're following along with Linda on that and Chip and Mary. So are there any other questions outside of that piece that this committee would like to consider? So if there's no questions there, before we vote on this, Kimberly would like to bring an amendment forth on behalf of our whole committee for us to consider adding to the bill. And it's the piece, it's the one that Katie, was it Katie that was just here? Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Katie. Teresa, do you want to put that up again? And Kimberly, do you want to offer it for consideration? Yeah, just a second. And I just sent it to the committee. Thank you. So, Katie, are we going to vote on each one of these separately or as a whole? We have to amend, Kimberly is going to bring forth for us to amend the bill. So we would vote on amending the bill and then we will vote on the bill as amended by human services and further amended by house appropriations. And then we're going to take up Charlie's amendment and take a position on that. So it's first is Kimberly's. Right. And then it's past the Senate and further amended by house. But Charlie's will be on the floor. And so... Yeah, but they did amend it first, but Charlie's got another one, right? They did not amend it. Okay. House commerce did not amend it. Okay. It's amended by house. Okay. And I just had a reminder before, let's do this amendment and then let's go through the 250, no, the $2.5 million additional costs. Kimberly, do you want to... Sure. Sure. So the two pieces as Katie just walked us through, it was essentially a recognition after human services had voted that there are some after-school programs who are not hubs and they were inadvertently left out. So if you look at lines 11 and 12, the words that say and after-school programs that are not otherwise serving as school-age childcare hubs. Though that is the missing piece and that is the added language into the work that human services did. And this is just sort of capturing that group. And I did make a quick phone call to the folks who run the after-school program. And I said, you know, give me an example. What is the group? And she pointed to a group, an organization that runs one planet. And this is out of the South Royalton-Tunbridge area. And apparently they've run a program for elementary-age children where the kids don't have remote learning. And when they have an early release at 1 p.m., they can then go to the one planet for the one-to-five slot till they get picked up by a parent or guardian. So this captures that. Thank you, Kimberly. Any questions for Kimberly? And before we vote on this amendment and then vote on the bill, I'd like to walk through the monopies, Mary. And it's just one of language. It's, you're describing this as simply adding those after-school programs. But the language, you know, talks about a workforce stabilization program. The language shifted, Mary. They originally, I mean, it's a little strange because the title still references hazard pay for frontline employees or something like that. But the preferred terminology, I don't know if you recall when Katie talked about some errors that were made along the way, that now the terminology is the one before us which is the workforce stabilization program. That's the language. And I think based on my very cursory, you know, inquiries, that's all happened yesterday. So then scrambling on a number of things. And I don't think it's a large universe that frankly is gonna be captured in that. So I don't think that there are fiscal implications. I mean, I could stand to be corrected, but that's my current understanding. Well, we'll learn from, well, maybe we won't. It's just the language is so different from what we were seeing, but this is just an evolution and how we are describing essentially the same cohort of people except we're adding in the after-school gang. That's right. Okay, thanks. Okay, and Chloe, could you walk through the 2.5 million colors that our committee will really be focused on the additional money that's needed for this bill? Sure, I'd be happy to. That's why you're here? That's why you're here? Yeah, that's why I'm here. You enjoy, so you enjoy, so okay, thank you. Yes. Oh, is Joyce here as well? That's great. No, I don't see her. Oh, okay. So as the bill originally, so we are also a little bit confused about the order of events, but as the bill came over from the Senate, they added, and I did provide a fiscal note to Teresa this morning that walks through the appropriations that relate to this whole program across both bills, but so as the bill originally came over from the Senate, it was essentially a technical corrections that added a number of employee categories that AHS, when they were administering the program through experience, recognized had been left out of the program. Those included contract janitorial staff and food service, and hotels and motels that were serving homeless individuals who are temporarily housed there. So we made an estimate on the number of employees that we believed would be covered by those technical corrections, and we estimated that it's gonna be about another 1,500 employees at a cost of approximately 2.5 million. Okay, are there any questions for Chloe? Thank you, sweetie. I'm gonna open up that screen. Chloe, did I jump in too quickly, or did you need to? Oh, this part was, once we know the employees that we're looking to include, it's easier for us to calculate the estimate. So this is fine. Any questions for Chloe on that calculation? I'm not seeing any. Okay, thank you, Chloe. No problem. Before Charlie, I'm sorry to keep you here so long, we can't address your amendment until we agree to a bill. And so I would entertain a motion if there's no questions or clarification needed from either the Commerce Committee or Legislative Council or Joint Fiscal Office. Mary, are you, do you have a question? Yeah, no, I'm just trying to find the fiscal note. And I, is that all rolled into the one? Yeah, that's what, it's both. There's one fiscal note that says, as both bill numbers on it. Okay, so I've got the right- Yes, I put everything in one fiscal note since it's all amending the same program. And so this way you can see the total appropriation that's gonna end up going to the program after these two amendments. Okay. And so then it's on the second page that you described the technical corrections and the 2.1. Okay, a 2.5. 2.5, yes. I just wanted to make sure I was reading the right thing. Thank you. No, thank you for reading it. Okay, so the first thing that we need to do is to the House Appropriations Committee if we're going to amend the bill as Kimberly has walked through. Kimberly, would you like to offer an amendment? Sure, so I would propose that we do amend the S352 as drafted in version 1.1 to include the after-school programs that are not otherwise serving as school-age child care hubs. Okay. So would that read, Madam Chair, like move to report favorably the amendment to S352 as presented by Representative Jessup? Yes, to 352, Teresa, help me here. Do we include as amended by House Human Services yet or not? So not yet. So you're just ending the bill right now. And Diane, I would just use the draft number of what I just mentioned. All right, that's... Okay, is there a second? Made a second. So the motion has been made and seconded to for House Appropriations Committee to amend S352 as dated and numbered on the version. Diane, can you give us that version number, please? I've got draft number 1.1. Thank you. And simply including the language around the including child care centers. Any final questions or clarification needed? Because there's a lot of moving pieces here. I need to print this one. Okay, if not, the clerk shall call the roll please. This is on the amendment. My pleasure. On the amendment. So Representative Conquest. Yes. Representative Fagan. Yes. Representative Feltas. Yes. Representative Helm. Yes. Representative Hooper. Yes. Representative Jessup. Yes. Representative Lanford. Yes. Representative Myers. Is she here? Linda, you're muted. Linda. She's... She has, we see she's saying yes in a thumbs up. Teresa, is that legal on Zoom? She really should say yes. Now it finally came up. Yes. Thank you. Representative Townsend. Yes. Representative Yackeloni. Yes. Representative Poll. Yes. So this is on the amendment. Yes. It's 11-0-0. Thank you, Diane. And now I would entertain a motion to vote favorably on S-352 as amended by House Human Services and further amended by House Appropriations. Yep. Got it. Diane, would you like to offer an amendment? I'd like to make... Yeah, I'd like to offer a motion that we report favorably on S-352 as amended by House Human Services and further amended by House Appropriations Committee. Is there a second? The motion has been seconded by Representative Myers and is there any further questions or clarification needed? If not, I would ask that the clerk call the roll. Representative Conquest. Yes. Representative Fagan. Yes. Representative Feltas. Yes. Representative Helm. Yes. Representative Hooper. Yes. Representative Jessup. Yes. Representative Lanford. Yes. Representative Myers. Yes. Representative Townsend. Yes. Representative Yacovoni. Yes. Representative Toll. Yes. Okay, that's 11-0. And this bill will... The House Appropriation Votes will be... The Human Services Amendment, I would like Kimberly to report that out. And Linda, I would like you to report out the bill. It's kind of split in two areas. Are we good with that? Okay, and then the questions, obviously, you know, we can talk to the 2.5 million, but the questions would really go back to the Commerce Committee on the floor of the House. And now... Can I just make a suggestion that we... For the clerk's purpose, we'll say Representative Myers is the reporter of the bill, and that she can ask to send questions to Representative Jessup when you get to that section. If questions come up, then you could always yield, Linda. If they're directly related to human services, because Kimberly was in the committee, or we may choose to send them right to the Human Services Committee. So, Representative Myers, I will be sending the name of the clerk right now. If you could reply all, and Representative Lamford will reply all with the vote. Great. And are we not... We're not going to do Charlie's yet? No, we're not. We're circling around to where we started Charlie, and I'm sorry, now we're going to come back to your floor amendment that we're going, we'll consider now. Theresa, would you just put the floor amendment up so everyone is, is clear with the floor amendment by representatives from the Commerce Committee? And there was a couple of changes. 352 or 353. That was in 352, Charlie, right? Yes. 352. Damian, do you want to do it? Yeah, I can do it. Okay. I think it's pretty quick. I think we've seen it once. Okay. So here's the amendment from the committee. So the first edition, which Representative Kimball mentioned already is the traveling nurse agency or other nurse staffing service. That provided nurses to healthcare facility or residential care facility during the eligible period. And then the next change here is consistency. You may remember that during in the initial bill that passed in the spring, we allowed employees at home health agencies and nursing homes to exceed the $25 an hour limit. So this will allow the traveling nurses and contract nurses to also exceed that limit. And there was a question earlier about the issue with traveling nurses or contract nurses where the, the facility pays the contract nurse employer. And then there are some, that contracting employer pays the actual traveling nurse contract nurse comes in. What we're really looking at here is the way the bill is set up. You are not allowed to withhold or charge a fee. For acquiring, for getting the grant. The only thing you can withhold are any applicable taxes that are due from either to be withheld from the employee's paycheck, or that the employer has to pay. So. I'm traveling nurse agency. And I've, I've provided these nurses to healthcare facility B healthcare facility B will pay me and I pay the traveling nurses, but then the traveling nurse agency actually applies for the grant for its nurses who are employed there and then passes the grant through them after withholding applicable taxes. So there will, there are no fees that are allowed to be withheld and that's what we're looking for. So that's what we're looking for. And then the other changes here are all around. The, just cleaning up the hazard pay language for former employees. In the first one here, the third instance of amendment at the top of the page here, we've gotten rid of the language saying that an individual may elect not to receive. An individual may not be able to apply. The fourth instance of amendment, we've made it obligatory for employees to identify former employees. So the word may has been struck and replaced with the word shall. The fifth instance of amendment here. Just changes the language. And then the fourth instance of amendment here. And then the third instance of amendment here. The notice to potentially eligible former employees. Doesn't inform them that they can elect not to receive it. It just informs them that they're not required to apply for a grant. And final instance of amendment here is instead of telling employers who have already submitted applications to the program that they can, that they may identify for employees. So those, those are the changes there. Thank you. So there's six instances instances of amendments. Are there any questions for clarification for either Damien or for the committee of jurisdiction. We have. Charlie or Stephanie here. No questions. Are we ready to take a position on this amendment that we will hear on the floor. Dave. Thank you. It's not clear to me. I'm sorry to open up a whole new area of, of discussion, but I'm not sure if the trains leaving the station. And this will be covered in S 353. But there's some confusion in my mind around EMS workers. I thought there was a lot of noise. Forgive me for characterizing it that way. I thought there was a lot of concern initially. But I think the private people, but, but not the, it wasn't so clearly municipal or the volunteer. My understanding was that a municipality. Through their CR ref assistance could choose to help their EMS workers, but, but I was left with the impression that there's a lot. There's a, there's a volunteer network that plays a large role in our first responders and that they've been excluded. So I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Can somebody help educate me, please? I'm not being critical. I'm just trying to find out what, if anything we're doing for those folks. Thank you. Sure. Okay, go ahead. Yeah, there's three funding streams that work here. So the first one in this bill. You're correct. Is for, would be for a private EMS service. And then the municipal. The C.R.F. funding bill. Excessively allows those municipalities to use the funding for hazard pay. But it comes down to, it's something the municipalities can choose whether or not to do with that CRF funding. And. And as we were starting the session, those funds were just starting to roll out is the extent to which municipalities are aware of that or or are actually using those funds for that. There's a third funding. We set aside $3 million for. I can't remember which agency at a just to provide EMS providers. Again, I believe was set aside for training, and then the winning 2 million could be doled out for various other things, including. Again, it's not clear to me to the extent to which that is actually being used for hazard pay for the municipal services, which include the volunteer and the professional services so most of the volunteer EMS and volunteer fire are considered to be part of a municipal service. And there are there are only a few that are private services. I do have some more detailed written material on that that I've prepared with Tucker Anderson, who's our municipal attorney that I can send out to the committee just explaining the breakdown but I think one of the things here is that the other funding streams were not dedicated to hazard pay. So they may be being used for other municipal or EMS needs whether that's PPE or other sort of. And I forgive me it's been a long week so I'm having trouble thinking of other needs but, but other needs that are eligible for CRF dollars, and they may not be being funneled towards hazard pay. And Damien, I believe that I hope this isn't two different municipality money that I'm talking pots of money but there was CRF dollars out to the municipalities that did not get used in the amount in the time limit that it had. I believe that the Senate has extending that period of time with that open it up for these groups of EMS workers because those dollars did not all go out the door. I think significant about left. That's a good question, and I'm just not sure. I haven't been working on that bill. So I just don't know. What's happening with those funds. I think we're talking about the money that was set aside for municipalities in case the schools didn't provide them with their funding. No, that's a different. It was a different set of money. That wasn't that ultimately what didn't end up being needed and that there was a, there was a different pot of money that went out for COVID related expenses. I think a fraction of it was used but they were bumping up against their deadline to apply for the money and I believe this, it was a September early September deadline. Senate bill that will bump that out until October. Let's see Damien, can you would you or Maria help us figure that piece out. Okay. If they didn't apply for it there and they didn't apply for it, then this provides the opportunity as you said there's three funding screens the first one being for the privates in this bill, but the municipal money or the 3 million within AHS that's available. I just do now Tucker to see if he can give me an answer on that. And I'll pass along to the committee when I hear back. Thank you. And Mary. Just a quick question maybe for Charlie. I appreciate the fact that the bill make sure that the money for the traveling nurses goes to them and not to the employment agency. Was there any discussion or concern in your committee that if all the employment agency might get out of it is the opportunity to withhold payroll taxes that they wouldn't bother applying for the hazard pay. I just want to say that we didn't discuss whether or not they would be motivated to to apply for that except that their employees would be pushing them to apply for it so there's they don't get any extra money for it but so we didn't discuss that. Really. Hopefully the market please will take care of it. Okay, thanks. Theresa, I mean, Mary. Just the observation that JFO should be able to tell us if there's money left in this pot and what the subscription has been to that. I don't know if Chloe has inside or Maria has. Maria is working on it. We actually just got word from Karen Horn who's listening in on today on our our discussion today and the information she provided is that town applied for 9.1 of the $12.6 million. She's looking into how much was used for hazard pay, but the tax department did extend the deadline to October 1 for applications. Okay, so I what I believe that we can do we can act on this amendment as it does address three avenues toward EMS workers and then Dave. I don't know if we have a period of time before this would come to the floor. If we feel it's not addressed but out of the 12.6 for municipalities Damien how much has been spent. I believe 9.1 is what Karen. Yeah, she says that towns have applied for 9.1 so I don't know how much of that has actually been issued. Obviously, I don't know if we have a period of time before an amount paid out could be different. But yeah, and then they their deadline is is two weeks out at this point. I believe 3.5 million for consideration for municipalities for the for those EMS workers, as well as is the full 3 million still available within the chest that that could be included in this as a stream. Yeah that I don't know. I'm aware of that money being available. But of that money only two of the three million could actually be put towards uses including hazard pay one specifically set aside for I believe training for personnel to deal with coven 19. So training them on safe practices and so forth. Okay, so we will get in touch with Sarah. She Maria do you have time to shoot Sarah quick email and ask her out of 3 million and the 2 million that would that would be available. How much has gone out for hazard pay and how much would be available. I don't know if she's listening I don't think Adam can weigh in on this. I can send an I will send Sarah an email. So what my question is before I ask my question Dave you have one. Thank you for your patience I just want to ask Amy and a question on this and you may not recall. Regarding the EMS do you know if they have to meet the same 68 hour standard in order to break that threshold to get assistance or is it much more flexible. So, the, the 68 hour standard only applies to the private EMS services who wouldn't be covered in the municipal funding. So the private EMS services who are covered by this bill. Would have to meet the 68 hour threshold. If you're a municipal EMS that's up to your municipality to determine with many volunteer services, the way it's done is either on a lump sum stipend or a per call stipend. As long as the staff is not equivalent to what you would pay in a professional firefighter EMS worker. Okay, thank you volunteer staff. So, yeah, it's thank you very much. Yep. Thank you Katie. Yeah. Thank you. So, my question for the committee is, are you ready to take a position on this amendment. Knowing that we can have another bite at the apple as we learn what is available through the two streams through AHS and through the municipal pot of money that has gone out. Are we comfortable taking a position on this amendment. Okay. I'm sorry I was getting ready for you madam chair. I'd like to make a motion that we report favorably on the amendment to S 352 as presented by representative Kimball and all. Thank you Diane is there a second. I'll second. The motion has been made and seconded. Are there any other questions or concerns regarding the amendment as presented by members from the human services. No committee. If not, I'd ask the clerk to please call the role. Representative conquest. Yes. Representative Fagan. Yes. Representative Feltas. Yes. Representative Town. Yes. Representative Hooper. Yes. Representative Jessup. Yes. Representative Lanford. Yes representative Myers. Yes. Representative Townsend. Yes. Representative Yachavone. Yes. Representative toll. Yes. This will be to report out. Thank you. Okay. Now we're a little late, but that was a little more complicated than I thought it would end up being. There are a lot of moving pieces. So let's move it right to S-353, and we have Damien here to continue to help state of council's presence. We also have Representative Jerome for the Committee of Jurisdiction, and Chloe, you are the JFO person as well for this one. I am. Thank you. No problem. So Stephanie, did you want to start with some opening remarks and then turn it to Damien or? Let me just give a broad summary of what's going on with this bill. So it's S-353 and it is an act relating to expanding the frontline employees hazard pay grant program. We've amended the bills slightly. So again, the bill is from mid-March to mid-May, and it's to cover employees that work for a covered employer, and they must satisfy that they are working within an elevated risk of COVID-19. They're performing 68 hours of work. They would receive the $1,200, and those who work between 68 to 216 hours would receive $2,000. So currently the program in 352 covers of provides funding for healthcare and human service employees who were dedicated to responding and to mitigating work in the virus. Let me just go over the expanded employee employment categories. So it would be for those people, employees who work in grocery stores, pharmacies, essential retailers who were listed within the governor's stay-at-home and stay-safe orders, such as hardware stores and food and beverage stores, agricultural and feed stores. Also wholesale distributors who are making deliveries to these retail establishments, as well as trash collection, waste management, and septic services, privately owned and operated water pollution and control facilities, childcare facilities that provided care to children of essential workers, vocational rehab providers, funeral and crematory establishments, and security services that provided security guards to the covered employers. So initially we were cautious about expanding the employee categories, because we were worried that they wouldn't be covered within the CARES Act, and worried that we would have to return funds if we had covered this larger group of employees. But now Pennsylvania has included this group within their guidance, within their bill, and it does not look like in the CRF funding now that these private sectors of workers would be prohibited within the CRF guidance. And I think that is about it. We have provided an appropriation of $12.5 million for this expanded list of employment under SB 23. Are there any questions? I'm sorry, I was muted. So the $1.5 million for the expanded group, did the Senate, the Senate had expanded this group as well, right? They did. Madam Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm finding it's so hard to hear you, Representative. I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. Okay. I just want to make sure that I hear your answer. Do you want me to go to the list of covered employees again? No, I was tracking on the paper, but I want to make sure I can hear your answer. Okay. Yeah. So what I need to understand, Stephanie, is the $12.5 million, the total cost, we set aside $15 million in the budget for the hazard paid bill. My understanding is that the full cost for the hazard paid bill is $22 million. And so where does this 12 and a half fit within the $22 million? It's not above the $22 million, is it? I'm hoping. No. About no, I mean, it was because we believe that we had allocated from the speaker and through the priorities of the house, $15 million to allocate to this. So it's two and a half million from $352 and 12 and a half from $353. Right. OK, so that is our $15 million for both of those bills. And what that $15 million does, it would make this a first come, first serve. This is the full expanded bill. The $15 million is what the house had set aside. And in order to fully cover all of that expanded categories, category, the full amount would be the $22 million, Charlie, even with the amendment that your committee. Yes, I believe it was. I believe it was not $22 million. Stephanie, help me out with those. Two and a half and then $17 and a half was a $20 million. So two and a half and 12 and a half. It was $22. $22. It was in the Senate, right. $22, yeah. $22 and a half came from the Senate and we and we want it and we are about $15 million. OK, so that committee members are following the total cost are both of the bills put together, $252 and $253. The two and a half we just this one. Because the house had passed a bill allowing only 15 allowing $15 million for House would pay house commerce had had had agreed to the language that is in this bill. But it would mean that it would become a first come first serve because the total between the bills would be at $15 million to fully pay for those that we believe who are eligible. It comes at a $22 million cost. So we're we're seven million apart. But I asked Steve and I think Steve just joined us. And I know we have Maria here too. And I don't know which of you are talking about this talking to us about this. I had asked the Joint Fiscal Office to look at what CRF money is available as more spending goes out the door or or issues that have come up. Is there any more flexibility within CRF? And Steve, do you want to talk to our committee or Maria? I don't know who from the Joint Fiscal Office or if it's Chloe. Who's to this? I can do it. I can do it unless Maria wants to really want me to do this or.  So the. So the Senate did fund, you know, they had other CF money use things and you can consider one is that some small things like the Housing Conservation Board said they weren't going to use 1.75 million of their money. There was $300,000 that the Defender General wasn't going to use of his money. That's about two million by itself. They also took two million out of the Joint Fiscal hundred and fifty million set aside, which gave them basically a total four million dollars to help meet their needs. And the big the big change that the Senate did, they did two two big things. The big one is in June, we get 275 million to the provider for provider funding in H.S. And the way H.S. is doing that, they're doing it in two payments. One payment has already occurred. The other one will occur in October based on the months prior to that. And the first payment went out and it was a total of $100 million. And so the second payment, a lot of those provided the number one one of the number one users were dentists who were basically not working at the time. And they are probably working. And so even if you estimate another hundred million dollars of payments and even if you estimate another hundred and fifty million of payments, there the 275 number is probably overstated. So the Senate basically used 20, I think in total about 28 million of that. Maybe 29 what they did is they gave the H.S. more authority to use money for testing and nursing homes. They gave and testing and other facilities. Then they also move some costs into the H.S. that funding line for providers. I think Maria can talk about that when we get to that area. And then they took out 25 million to cover sort of CRF needs. And a lot of that money went to meet the need of the the fully fund the Hazard Pay Bill and bring the 15 up to 22. And then another huge chunk of that money went to increase funding for K through all of education because the data has come back showing that the number isn't 32 million, it's more like 53 million a need right now. So they funded the whole need. There was an identified and there's a chart on that we can go into later. Thank you, Steve. So when the budget left the house, there were some unknowns that we didn't have. We didn't the 1.7 million from BHCB. We were we were hoping that they were able to do the full four million additional in projects. And I think it was just I can't remember it was yesterday or the day before we did receive a letter from Gus saying that they're not going to be able to use the for the full four million. The defender general that that was an eligible money that could be used. And so that freed up the 300 that Steve talked about. There is some of the four million left at the joint fiscal office. We did know about that, but we did we did not touch that, not knowing what future needs would be. And then when we made our decision on the budget, we we did not move or make take a position on the provider, the funding to providers through AHS, there have to be some significant capacity. So what I would ask the committee now is we're going, we're going, we have the Senate's version of the budget. Do does this committee want to take a position and add seven million from this additional pot for hazard pay? And and and pay the full costs? Or do we want to leave it at the 15 million and make it a first come first serve? Because that's the money that we had to work with when we passed it out. If we decide to do the full amount, we would have to note that when we go in to do the budget that that we have already, you know, we've already made a decision on seven million of that pot of money that is left of CRF. So let's have some discussion now about the position that the committee would like to take on hazard pay using, you know, making this this decision now, which will, you know, impact some of our decisions that we make later. Any thoughts? Well, Madam Chair, I can I can start if that's OK. So I'm I'm given given the information that was, you know, the amount and we're very, very careful, not only just to how we spend our CF money, but tracking our CF money to see where there are pockets of small amounts and large amounts that are able to be retooled and placed in a place where we had priorities that we feel like we can get it out the door. I am very, very comfortable with taking because from where it's coming from are not places where we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. So, yes, I'm very comfortable with this. Thank you, Diane. Charlie, did you want to speak? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I realize I'm not a member of the committee, but I just wanted if we had to live with a smaller dollar amount, things that we talked about is do decrease the amount of the benefit going out to potential recipients? Do you carve out some people and say, no, you don't get it? Or so those were some things that we discussed. So knowing that you would be able to find money, we made neither of those recommendations. So I just wanted to let you know that we considered other options as to how to extend that money to cover everybody that might be included in that program. OK, thank you, Charlie.  And if we decide to do 15 or a number in between, then we'll open that conversation. Thank you, I'm fine with the twenty two million, in other words, adding seven million now. The funds will go out immediately. And thus and thus, you know, we won't have to worry about scooping them back on the 20th of December and trying to reallocate to somebody else. People will spend them in our local economy. And that will that will help the locals. There's a lot of good reasons to do this. I'm fine with doing it now. Thank you, Peter. And Stephanie, we'll go back up to the Commerce Committee. I see your hand is up. Thank you. I just wanted to note that the twenty eight million dollars for the first hazard pay program has nearly been completely spent and the applications, the final applications are under review. So it will be totally spent by the end, very shortly. Thank you. That's important to know. Linda. Well, I think that what we're looking at and the people that we're looking at, I think we have to really I feel like we need to go all in for for for those people. Those people have been handling what we have been sitting here, not been able to handle. And so I really feel that it's important that we go for the full seven million into this plan, into this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Linda. Chef. I was going to speak up in support of this. I don't think I need to say much more than has already been said. I just, you know, for me, it's really highly brought up the potential. So if we didn't do this, we'd have to consider how else we're going to deal with it. And making those kinds of either reductions in pay or saying that it's on a first come, first serve basis, particularly for this group that we're trying to serve just does not seem like the way I want to go. And I don't think it's the way the legislature wants to go. I mean, I think my impression is that we've all been really supportive of trying to make sure that people who have been serving for moderate during this and taking the risks should be getting that consideration of hazard pay. And so I wouldn't want to have to make those kinds of decisions about reducing the amounts for the or deciding who didn't get it. So I'm a long winded way of saying I'm just supportive of what everybody else is saying here. Thank you, Chef. I have Kimberly and Mayda, Dave. Two words, long overdue. Thank you, Kimberly. Mayda and then Dave. Thank you. I think my questions have been answered. I just want to double double check that if we go with the twenty two million, we are effectively fully funding this effort and that all workers, all of the frontline workers who have been mentioned as this discussion has gone on, that they will be covered and will be fully covered as stipulated within the bills. Yes, I am looking for a nod from JFO from Chloe or Steve. Chloe, can I answer that better than me? Yes, yes. Yes, thank you. So all I needed to have reassurance on. Thank you. So the best of our estimates. Yes, that's always important. These are these are all estimates. So but yes, that's the intent. I'm cautiously supportive to the degree to which we may be taking money from the Health Care Stabilization Fund, the two hundred and seventy five million because one hundred million went out and and presumably another in October is going out. And leave some money left over. I'm reluctant not seeing a spreadsheet, not seeing any data on on who received money from AHS, who might have asked for money, who might not have, who might have got less than what they asked for. Now, all of that may be fine, but I'm trusting that it is. And I'm reluctant to do that. Maybe if if Maria or somebody could at least get a spreadsheet from Sarah at AHS, just so we could we could see that and know that I'm on a board and I'm not advocating for a local provider, but I happen to be on a board of directors for a nursing home. And and boy, just hearing about reduced admissions, taking beds offline because of covid, etc. That industry is just like our child care industry. If you don't support the infrastructure when we come out of this, it won't be there or it's very fragile with all of the acute pressures they have. Now, maybe all of that has been well addressed by the stabilization funds, but I'm not sure and I'm not sure how volatile the situation is. That's one point. My other point that I don't know if everybody's going to apply for this. We might think that they will apply for it. We would hope an employer would, etc. But I feel I do feel comfortable that if there's money left over, correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Chair, we have a failsafe in December, whereby the unspent money can go to the UI fund and cover our state commitment there. So that makes me comfortable that we won't be sending anything back. If indeed, you know, AHS got it more than right, etc. And when I say AHS getting it right, that that's not meant to be unkind, that they might not. It's just like I'm I sometimes am cautious in this committee. And and that's that's all. So if if we could at least get a spreadsheet and I don't want to hold things up, I'll look it over, etc. Does that make make sense? Am I it does make sense? I just want to remind you, Dave, of the seven million that's needed, five is covered in other areas. So it would be just two million out of the two hundred and five million because we have the little we have one point seven from BHCB and the three hundred from the defender general, the two hundred. I mean, the two million from from the Joint Fiscal Committee. And so that's a total of five million that we can identify and and to make it whole. It would be two million out of the two hundred and seventy five. So question to you is we can ask Sarah Clark to come in and to give us a rundown out of that hundred million and who was addressed. And if the total one seventy five will be needed in addition or if we're comfortable taking any of that to to address the final two million here and to address any unused amounts to go out. Thank you, thank you. I don't think I listened as well when I heard a number of twenty eight million and I started scribbling and wasn't listening. I think if it's just two million fine, I don't think there's any need to hold up with Sarah testifying. Well, the twenty eight million we're going to want to because that was the larger the twenty five that the Senate is proposing to do other things within the budget. And so that would be, you know, a further budget discussion. And I think most of that went through twelve. So we could have Sarah in for that larger discussion so that we fully understand the availability of those dollars. Madam Chair, I wasn't sure if this was helpful. Sent this to page seven is the one we need. Page seven or page seven. I'm sorry. Yeah, I made a mistake just to give you a sense of where the money went. Actually, there you go. So the ninety eight point seven is what went out. And you can see the types of beneficiaries were that first ninety eight point seven went out on this sheet. Hospitals got sixty five million. And then there's a list following this in the document. And we should continue this. This was what was given out in the Green Mountain care board meeting. But I think it's a good idea to have Sarah come and talk about it. Thank you, Steve. So my question is for Dave and for the members. Are we comfortable moving with the seven, the full seven million to make hazard pay whole? Or do we want to make an adjustment in between the larger will be when we do the budget on on whether we can accommodate twenty five million out of that pot. But there's still two million that we would need to take from now. Mary, I propose that we add the entire amount necessary to make the hazard pay program whole. I'll second that. OK, so there's a motion on the floor to add the entire amount to make the hazard pay whole. I do want to remind the committee. I don't think we've walked through the we did the highlights of the bill, but we didn't do the actual walkthrough of the bill with Damian and my mind. Is my mind that I did I miss this? And I don't believe we did the walkthrough. Damian, is that correct? No. So walkthrough. Yeah, let's just take a position on the money at this point. And then let's do a walkthrough of the bill and then we'll take a vote. So there there's a motion on the floor to to consider the full twenty two million after we have, you know, depending on the walkthrough of the bill, is there any other questions or comments? This is just going to be a raise of hands. Those of you that support that, please raise your hand in the committee. And those of you that are opposed, I need a verbal no, please. OK, so we have tentatively agreed to the twenty two million. Damian, could we do a quick walkthrough? We had the highlights of the expanded employment categories and for the time period and the money that is needed. But our committee does need to look at the bill. And Marty, I'm sorry, or was that a hand up for the vote? Hand up for the vote. I had a hand up for the vote. OK, thank you. OK, Theresa, would you put the bill up or Damian and we can do that walkthrough? So this is the committee's amendment here. I'm not going to put up the underlying bill because they're they're very similar. And I think it would just get too confusing. OK. So what the amendment does is it strikes out the first section of the Senate bill and just puts in a brand new first section. So the first changes here, just technical changes in the opening introductory paragraph, because we're expanding it to other essential frontline employees, not just the health safety and human services. The next changes here are and just as Representative Jerome summarized, we're adding in the retailers that were open during the stay home, stay safe order. So these are your grocery store, pharmacy, food and beverage, hardware, agricultural supplies, et cetera. We're adding in the wholesale distributors, making deliveries to those retailers. Trash collection, waste management and septic services. Operators have defined water pollution abatement and control facilities. And the important thing to note here, so this is, for example, global foundries operates its own water pollution control facility, which includes both industrial wastewater and domestic wastewater. And so the key is is that it found COVID-19 in facilities at this point because it goes straight from your sink and down the pipe. So this would be for industrial operators that treat both their industrial wastewater and their domestic waste water. So there's an elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19. Child care facilities that were providing child care services to essential workers during the stay home, stay safe order, vocational rehabilitation providers to the extent that they were providing rehab services in person, funeral establishments and crematory establishments. And then this last one here is the security services agencies. They're licensed under Title 26. They would have been providing crowd control direction to people, controlling entrances to facilities that are closed off, et cetera. I see a question. Mary? Well, I was going to wait till you took a breath, but you're in the wastewater description, you cited industrial, and you were quite specific. I assume this covers any privately owned wastewater because there are other wastewater treatment providers who are not industrial. Is that correct? Yeah, so we've covered both the septic services, which would service like a community septic or an individual septic service. And it's worth noting that they weren't providing regular service during this period, but they were providing emergency service. So if you had a system that was failing or overflowing, they would service that and expose themselves to potential exposure to the virus. And then these water pollution abatement and control facilities are facilities that are similar to the municipal sewage treatment facility that you're familiar with. Important thing is that this is something that's going to be treating sewage, not just industrial waste. The one that was mentioned to us from A&R as their best, the example that jumped to mind first was global foundries. But they mentioned that there are several others around us that treat our private facilities that treat sewage, domestic wastewater. So yeah, it's not necessarily just a mixed industrial and domestic wastewater. It could be any privately operated or privately owned and water pollution control facility. OK, thank you, Damian. Thank you, Mary. Mary, do you have a follow up or can we continue? I think we can continue, Damian. OK, so the the rest of this is strike through of the conditional language that the Senate had added at the end of June, which would have put back in these private sector frontline workers if the guidance under the CARES Act changed or if there was a new federal funding stream. So it's worth noting that the guidance under the CARES Act I would not say that it's been expanded, which was the requirement in the bill. It has changed and but it's still not explicit on this issue of private hazard. So what's happened since we ended in June is Pennsylvania passed a prospective hazard program very similar to ours, except it was for the fall rather than the spring that were grocery store and pharmacy workers and a number of other private sector essential workers who weren't health safety or human services workers. Louisiana also provided a hazard pay tax rebate to those that same group of workers. And then subsequent to that at the beginning of September, the Treasury Department updated its guidance. It relaxed some of the wording around hazard pay, saying that hazard pay, it struck wording that said it had to be for health care, human services, public safety, et cetera, and just said that it had to be for a hazard specifically related to COVID-19. And then all of the other language around it was related to the public sector workforce, basically saying that you couldn't provide a hazard pay to all, for example, state employees who continued working at the office during the pandemic. You had to limit it to those state employees who actually had an elevated risk related to COVID-19 and did not provide any further limitations on the private use. So the way I read that is it's still not 100 percent clear, but it's moved us down the continuum of risk from something where I felt uncomfortable saying that we could safely do it without a clawback to something where I feel still not 100 percent comfortable, but more comfortable saying that it appears like the federal government is not tying our hands. And then the backup to all of this is our requirements are that it's consistent with federal guidance. So if the guidance changes, AHS can always limit the use of those funds going forward. So that language is already in the authorizing language for the bill. So we have a couple of fail-saves here. So I think we've moved down that continuum of risk to a lower risk proposition if we add these employees in. Thank you, Damian. Theresa, can we have the full screen again? Oh, I can stop the share here. OK, there you go. Thank you. And so this as Damian formally walked through were the highlights that Stephanie had brought to our attention. And the 19.5 is the full amount for this bill. House Commerce did the 12.5 because of the amount we had in the budget. And then the other 2.5 is in the bill that we had just passed that travels. So we would be if we're going to change the amount back to the full amount, we'd need a formal motion on the floor to amend the bill as amended by House Commerce House Commerce. Would someone like to make that motion? Mary, I made a Mary. I was trying trying to raise my hair. Yeah, thank you. So I move that we increase the appropriation in this bill to nineteen point five million dollars. Knowing that we have the other, you know, so we were talking about a total need of twenty one. Twenty two million, knowing that we have the two point five and the other bill that we discussed. So we need to add nineteen point five here. So my motion is that we appropriate nine a total of nineteen point five to this bill. Is there a second? They have a second from Mehta. And so the motion has been made and seconded for a total of nineteen point five million to be reflected in this bill, creating a full twenty two million for hazard pay between the two bills. Any final any final questions or comments? If not, Diane, this is a House Appropriation Committee amendment to have the bill reflect a total of nineteen point five million. And I would ask that you call the role, please. Sorry, Madam Chair, I had to step away. Who first and second? I didn't catch it. Mary made the motion. I made a great reporter. OK, so this is a motion to make sure that the bill has the nineteen point five. It's an amendment from the House Appropriations Committee. OK, Representative Conquest. Yes, Representative Fagan. Yes, Representative Feltas. Yes, Representative Helm. Yes, Representative Hooper. Yes, Representative Jessup. Yes, Representative Lanford. Yes, Representative Myers. Yes, Representative Townsend. Yes, Representative Yakovone. Yes, Representative Tolle. Yes, OK, and will you be drafting that amendment and sending it to me and I will. Initiate the email to the clerk and CCU. Yeah, I just drafted the amendment and sent it to our editors. It would basically just strike out the second instance of amendment in the House Commerce Report. So the amount of funding would stay at the nineteen and a half million full funding. I'll let you know when I've got it. Great, thank you. Thank you, Damien, so much. Thank you, Stephanie, for coming in. Chloe, thank you for the the fiscal pieces and Commerce Committee. Thank you, Charlie, you're here, too. Are you still here? I'm looking around the squares. Everyone keeps jumping. Thank you to your committee for the work that you've done. And this took a little bit longer than we had anticipated, but I really wanted to walk through the pieces so that we were really clear who was doing what and why the changes had happened. So thank you. I'm sure your committee is very thorough. Thank you very much for your support. Thank you for fully funding. Yeah, and Linda, you have your hand raised. Yeah, I didn't hear who was going to report this. Mary is for you. This is you when I thought it's you. And I'm as I'm creating the email now that you provide to. OK, thank you.  Yes, so we do not need to vote on three fifty three. As amended by commerce and further amended by appropriations. Didn't we just do that? No, we just amended it. We just did the amendment. Thank you. Thank you, I'm like, did I miss something? I had already checked it off. I'm moving to the next agenda item. OK, now I save the space for it. Thank you, Diane. And so now we are ready for the final step. Diane, would you like to make a motion? I would like to make a motion that we report favorably on S three fifty three as amended by house commerce and further amended by house appropriation. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded. Are there any final questions or comments? If not, the clerk shall call the. It would be my pleasure. Representative Conquest. Yes. Representative Fagan. Yes. Representative Feltas. Yes. Representative Helm. Yes. Representative Hooper. Yes. Representative Jessup. Yes. Representative Lanford. Yes. Representative Myers. Yes. Representative Townsend. Yes. Representative Yacoboni. Yes. Representative Toll. Yes. All right, that's on a vote of 11, zero, zero. And this is all being reported by Representative Myers, correct? Yes, thank you. All right, I will learn not to check things off before we actually complete them. So thank you. Thank you, everybody. And we're going to take a five-minute break now, or maybe let's say we are going to come back and actually be working at quarter after. I think Teresa Maria can do a quick over CRF differences. There's not many, but there is the question that we would like to have Sarah Clark come in and talk to us about. So the other pieces, I think that it's a pretty straightforward just for informational purposes. And at 11, we have Representative Copeland-Hanses coming in to do S-124. We don't actually have it, but we're going to take the testimony in advance of receiving the bill. So see everybody at 11.15. Grab something to drink, a cup of coffee, and something to eat. I'm going to go.