And I'm sorry for a little late start with the House Energy and Technology Committee meeting Friday morning. This morning, we are taking up the Global Warming Solutions Act, which is H688. It's a bill that we had in this committee in January and February with the House passage back in February. The Senate has worked on this bill in May and June this year and has sent it back to us with some amendments, which we're going to be discussing this morning. We have our legislative counsel on the bill, Luke Martinland with us this morning. Thanks for joining us, Luke. And just a little situational awareness to the extent that I have it and can share with the committee. My understanding from the speaker is that she is anticipating pulling this bill off the calendar next week for action. I don't have any precise visibility and timing, other than there's interest in moving this bill somewhat in concurrence, or not in concurrence, but along a parallel path with the budget. So depending on when the budget gets to the floor, my anticipation is that the speaker will be looking to pull this bill off the calendar at about the same time. And so certainly want to take the time this morning to go through the Senate proposals of amendment, discuss those, and as the reporter of the bill, when that bill comes back to the floor, I'll need to report what our committee's support was for those amendments or not. So hence the discussion this morning to get updated on those amendments, get the committee's view on those amendments, and from my perspective, to prepare for what would be a floor report on that. Luke, I know that you have some documents that are posted to our website, three of them, I think, and that you wanted to use maybe one or two of them this morning for us to go through the walkthrough with you. Is there one that we should pull up, or do you want to pull them up on the screen? There is one that I'll use, and I'll pull it up and show it to you on my screen. I think that might be easiest. And then you can all just follow along. Good morning, everybody. Luke Marlin from Legislative Council. Did you have anything else to say, Mr. Chair? Before I go through the thing? I just wanted to introduce what we'll do this morning, and to the extent that I have visibility on next week, I wanted the committee to be aware of that as well. Well, thank you. And once again, good morning, everybody. So today, we're talking about H688, the Vermont Global Warming Solution Act. And as the chair indicated, this was a bill you last looked at in February, then it went to the Senate, and the Senate returned proposals of amendment. There's six proposals of amendment. At least two of them are not substantive. And I emailed you two documents yesterday. One is the normal side-by-side that you're probably used to seeing any time you're comparing a House and Senate bill. And please feel free to look at that. If we were in the State House, I'd probably bring you paper copies of that side-by-side document because it's a big document, and that's what we'd use to go through the changes. However, it's awfully tough to see that on a small screen. And so what I did in the document I'll use today is a little different. I took the House as pass version of the bill, and I incorporated the Senate proposals of amendment and highlighted them. And I thought that might be a little quicker and a little easier for you to see the context of those Senate proposals of amendment. And so I'll pull up that document now and show it to you, and we'll use that as I do my walkthrough. As always, I hope you all can hear me clearly. If not, please raise your hand or let me know. If there's any questions, of course, please interrupt. So let's begin by looking at this document. Luke, I'm sorry to interrupt. Robin, did I see your hand go up? I beg your pardon. Yes, and I'm asking it now because I'm afraid I'll lose the hand function once Luke's screen takes over. And it's just to clarify that the lines that are struck out and changed but not highlighted in yellow are those changes that we made back in June? Yes, so good question. Everything that the Senate is proposing, I've highlighted in yellow. So it's not highlighted. It's exactly the text that you had in the bill that you passed out of the house in February. Okay, thank you. And Danielle, can you make me a co-host just so I can see hands when they go up? Thank you. Alrighty, Luke. Great, and once I share the screen, I won't be able to see your videos. So say something, interrupt me if you have a question. I will look for hands as they come up. Great, so as an introduction, there's no amendments or proposed amendments to section one, which is a short title, section two, which is the findings, or section three, which is the greenhouse gas reduction requirements. Instead, the first proposal of amendment is now in section four. And this is the language, would be the new chapter in title 10 that concerns the Vermont Climate Council, the Climate Action Plan, and the rulemaking authority. So in section 590, which is definitions, there was a typographical error that I had made that the Senate corrected. In other words, in your version, I had a five. It should have been four. It's a numbering change. The next proposal of amendment- And then could you want to bring this up on the screen? Yeah, isn't it, you can't see it? Oh, I'm sorry. Hold on a second. Let me fix that. So my mistake, I thought I'd share it. Thank you. Can everyone see this now? I can. It's on my screen. You can see it. Yep. Can everyone else see it? Yes. Excellent. Thank you for telling me that. I didn't realize it. I could see the resolution is four. So if you can magnify it a bit. Let me try to do that. I'm also thinking about a little better. There you go. Yeah, that's better. Okay. So thank you. Once again, we're now in section four of the bill. The new chapter added to title 10, definitions. They corrected a numbering mistake. Going on to the next page where there's a correction is on page seven. Let me back up a little bit. This is now the composition of the council, the people who will be on the council. And if you remember, there's executive branch representatives and there's also folks appointed by the house and by the Senate. What the Senate did is add another member to be appointed by the speaker in age. This is new language, one member to represent Vermont manufacturers. There will now be 23 total members of the council, eight in the executive branch, seven appointed by the Senate and eight now appointed by the house. The next change is on page 13. I'll go to the preceding page. We're still in the same section of law 591, which concerns the council. And the amendment is to subsection F, which has language about the quorum and how the council will meet. You'll see at the bottom of this page, the highlighted language was added. And I'll try to get the whole, there it is, shall meet at the call of the chair or a majority of the members of the council and the council and then it proceeds with the language you had in. This was added to allow a majority of the members of the council to call a meeting. If, for example, the chair of the council who was the secretary of administration fails to call meetings. So sort of a safety valve that the chair is not calling meetings, a majority of the council can call a meeting. Are there any questions about that? I will then jump to the next change, which is on page 21. I see there might be a question. Yes, on the stage that you talked about, did we not have a stipulation as to when the meetings may be called? Well, you had a requirement that the meeting be called. I forgot the timeline fairly quickly. So you had a timeframe, but you didn't have any language. You said that the chair would call the meetings, but you didn't have any safety valve if the chair isn't calling meetings or calling meetings as often as the rest of the council would like. Okay, so. Do you want me to go back to the language? Well, where did we stipulate that the chair should call the meetings? I'd have to look that up. I'm not certain of the exact. But not. It might very well be in the same area. Let me look. I think there is language at the chair, at least calls the first, calls the meetings. I forget where that is, I'm sorry. Okay, but we had it in there somewhere. I can double check that when I'm done and you guys are having your discussion, I'll go back and double check, but I'm pretty sure you did. All right. So going back to page 21 of this document. So this is now in the section of the bill concerning the rulemaking by A&R. It would be in the new 10 VSA 593. And we see in K is just a word change from promulgate rules to adopt rules. This is not a substantive change that has any legal significance. It was, we like to use and let you counsel the phrase adopt rules and we try to be consistent. So when I was going back through it, I caught that I'd use promulgate. I should have used the word adopt. So it's simply making that change. It does not have any legal impact. Going on to the next proposed amendment, which is on page 24 of this document. So this is now in the language pertaining to the cause of action. And if you remember us here in C, there's language that a prevailing party can under certain circumstances recoup costs or attorney's fees. And the language that is changed is in two, which pertains to the defendant. In other words, the state of Vermont, A&R, the attorney general's office would be carrying out the litigation, but they would be defending A&R. In a lawsuit that A&R wins, they can be under certain circumstances awarded reasonable costs. That's language you had. The Senate added in the words and attorney's fees if the action was deemed frivolous by the court. So it allows the state of Vermont to recoup attorney's fees if the cause of action was deemed frivolous. Are there any questions about that? Luke, I've got a, it's Tim. I've got a quick question on that. And this is more my lack of understanding of how kind of the plaintiff's attorney's world might work, which is I had thought that we had covered the state of Vermont being awarded reasonable costs that that was a pretty wide ranging thing. I certainly understand and agree with adding attorney's fees, but is that somehow a kind of special expense or special cost that needs to be called out? That's the only thing I wasn't familiar with. Well, if you see in one above, which is the plaintiff, they could both pay costs and attorney's fees. I think the reason why you didn't include attorney's fees is the attorneys who would be defending the state are assistant attorney generals. Their salaries already paid. So I think you discuss, well, should we, since they're already being paid and they're going to be paid regardless and they're working for the state, should we also be able to recoup compensation for their salary or not? This was in Senate judiciary, one senator thought it was important to add this in and they added in the AG's office did testify. I don't think they had a strong opinion one way or the other. Okay, I understand. And I also see the parallel to the prior subsection. So I see Robin's hand up. Go ahead, Robin. Thank you. Luke, just a building on Tim's question. What is the difference? What is included in costs as opposed to attorney's fees? Well, cost could be a range of things. It could be say your plaintiffs of filing fee when you file the cause of action to get into court. It could be costs associated with experts. Remember, we talked that some of these lawsuits might be cut and dried. The cause of action of A&R had done nothing, for example, what we call the rate of mandamus, but other ones might be quite complex. You might have expert testimony, you might need experts to come to court, you might need to pay for them to do their analysis. You know, there might be a whole range of costs to bring the action or defend the action. I think those are the type of costs that maybe could be recouped. Thank you. Auburn, did you have a question? Yes, just following up. Luke, are you aware whether the attorney general's office in cases, whether it's on this subject or any other, sometimes hires outside counsel to assist in a case? I'm not sure about that. And the analogy would be causes of action under the Administrative Procedure Act. I don't know if they hire outside counsel. I think potentially in this cause of action, they might be hiring experts or people to do statistical analysis or data crunching. I don't know if they would, but that's what I thought maybe would be some outside expert or company to do some kind of analysis that might be relevant. Don't see any other hands up, Luke. Great. So now we're gonna jump to the end of the bill, and this is now going to the section on appropriation, the money section, and then section, what was section 10 about new positions to help carry forth the act. These were both stricken. So money was taken out and the new positions were taken out by the Senate. And as a result, the number for the effective date, the number of that section would also change. So that is the final proposals of amendment for the Senate and that concludes my walkthrough. Are there any questions? Should I keep the document up or should I take it down? What's best? Well, why don't we keep it up unless members would prefer to look at, yeah, why don't we keep it up, Luke? I think it's easier, especially since this is what you've made us familiar with in the walkthrough. And I'm just flipping through the document on my home computer screen right now to see if there are any other things that I wanted to bring up. Mike Yantachka had that question earlier, which I've been flipping through, Mike, I don't know if you have as well about, my recollection about that question, and this is at the bottom of page 13, top of page 14 about how the committee could meet or how the committee could be called into meeting. And I do remember discussing this as a committee topic back in February. And similar to Mike, I thought I had a recollection that there was something in here that would constitute calling a meeting and I'm not seeing it right now. But I also do remember having this question of what if, for whatever reason, the chair in their unilateral power decided they didn't wanna call meetings of the council, they didn't want the council to meet. What was the ability of the council to still meet? And I had listened to the Senate testimony on this and clearly this is meant to address that issue. But representative Yantachka, I'm not finding in here other ways that the council could be called into meeting. Mike, I don't know if you found it, or Luke. And yeah, I was trying to read through the bill. I didn't see anything either. So I think I was mistaken. I don't think there's language saying the chair shall call meetings. I don't see it at least. I'll keep looking, but I think- Well, that said that I'm glad this language is in because I thought there was something in there about meetings being called. And this was a question that had come up before. Clearly we hadn't resolved it. So, okay. Okay, I'm just flipping through, okay. I'm not seeing any hands up, but I would certainly welcome any questions or commentary that people have on this. One of the advantages of Zoom hearings is the fact that you get to listen to what other committees are working on. And I had taken the opportunity to listen to some of the Senate testimony, some of the witnesses, similar to witnesses that we had in our committee, but some of the discussion about some of these changes. I do see a couple of hands up first, Mike, and then Laura, questions or comments? Yeah, I see in section six, that it says that the chair shall call the first meeting of council within 30 days after all members have been appointed, but it doesn't. There's no other call specified other than the change of the Senate meeting. Yep. Okay, thanks for that, Mike. That was also gonna be my comment, Mr. Chair. So- Well, Mike beat you to it. Mike gets an apple. He beat me to it. Okay. Yeah, so again, this is our time for committee discussion. I mean, my view on these changes I appreciate the Senate adding the, a member representing the manufacturing community. I think it's an important sector to have represented here. It was something that we actually had considered back in January and February. And my recollection is that, frankly, we were reluctant to put more members on the council, but that said, I would certainly welcome them being an important stakeholder involved in the production of this plan. In terms of the change on calling meetings, I think that the change that the Senate made is not only constructive. Frankly, I'm wishing it's something that we had put in there. So I appreciate that addition. I've already made my comment known on the attorney's fee or the question I had there. With regard to the appropriation being taken out, while I was disappointed in that, I was not at all surprised. I think the way that this was articulated to me by some senators that I spoke with was that this was not necessarily a kind of an impugning of the bill in terms of taking the appropriation out, but they wanted to have this appropriation considered through their normal appropriation process, which I believe it now will be. I understand from the House Appropriations Committee that this is something that is being looked at by them and will be, I'm hopeful, will be included in our budget this year. We'll certainly know that maybe by the end of today, maybe it'll be by Tuesday. So this got a little bit sidetracked in that this bill would be going down the path of having these positions supported in the budget. And again, I'm hopeful and expecting that that's gonna happen in the House budget. So I'm supportive of these proposals of amendment for this bill. I don't think they changed them radically. I think they are improvements on the margin and my expectation is that this appropriation will be included in the House budget, or at least I'm hopeful. I see three hands up, Avram, Mike and Heidi. So go ahead, Avram and then Mike and Heidi. Thank you. My comments really, I guess kind of echo yours, Tim. I mean, we were aware of the issue around the appropriations and we haven't discussed that. So whether I would have preferred leaving it in or not, that's a moot point at this point. In terms of the other changes, the way I see them, they are either a few, I'm just gonna say technical or correction type things and a few that make minor improvements or clarifications to what we sent over and it's probably unusual to get back a bill with so few changes other than the appropriations part. Mike and then Heidi and then Laura. Yeah, I just wanted to note that it was gracious of the Senate to add the extra member to those appointed by the speaker. Very empowering. Heidi? I'll just echo what you said, Mr. Chairman, about the additional member from the manufacturing sector. I think I was, if I recall correctly, and I could be wrong, but I was pushing for that in our deliberations. I thought it was critical given the impact, the potential impact, the probable impact this will have all of these new regulations will have on our manufacturing industry. So I think it's critical. So I'm pleased to see that addition in there. Good, thank you. Laura? Yeah, I would, I am happy to see so few changes. I feel like the Senate has made excellent suggestions and I think we still have a really good bill. So I'm ready to concur. Okay. Scott, did you have a comment or question? No, just a comment that echoes everyone else's comments. I think the changes are good. And I would like to support the bill as many. Mark, I saw your hand come up. Yeah, so again, this is a comment. I initially didn't vote for the bill. I don't believe that any of these changes makes it any better or any worse. I think there's really no good time for this and especially now with another additional million dollars. I think it is a little bit deceiving to pull it out of this bill and put it into the big bill, which is going to be harder to find in a sense for a lot of folks. I think I've found another $972,000 for the Vermont State colleges. I would also comment. I'm sure you've all seen the letter from the governor stating that there'll probably be a veto on this bill if the citizen's right to supervision doesn't come out. So again, I guess I'd like the committee to comment on that. And again, I will not be supporting any of these changes and not be supporting the bill in general. Thank you. Yeah, no, thanks, Mark. It's something that I don't, just something I wanna comment on in terms of your comments that I don't have full clarity on with regard to the appropriation. The appropriation that we had in our bill back in February that was adopted by the House was for $972,000. And I'm gonna confess that I didn't then and I still don't now have full clarity on why the 972 number was in there at the recommendation of the Joint Fiscal Office. That's a two-year appropriation. The appropriation for fiscal year 21, at least as we passed it back in February is for $586,000. The year two appropriation would be $386,000. And the only reason I bring that up, Mark, is just by way of clarity. It's not clear to me what the appropriation will be in the FY21 budget that the House ultimately comes out with. You've mentioned the 972 number. It couldn't be that, not saying it won't be, but it could also be the 586 number, just for a point of clarity. Yeah, I think, I mean, you're right. I fully understand you didn't support this bill back in February. And I think I have clarity on that and not surprised with regard to your reaction to these changes as well. You mentioned a letter from the governor. I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing or not. The governor had sent me a letter back in, as probably mid-August. I can't remember exactly what the date was. And it was a letter that was addressed to, I believe it was addressed to the chair of House Natural Resources, the president pro tem and the speaker. And he raised three points that he had questions and concerns about in the bill. And they were the same points that his administration had brought with our committee back in February. So they were not surprises. One of them, as you noted, was the cause of action section in the bill, the ability to sue. And he, yeah, so what I did not take from that letter, however, was that he was going to veto the bill over that provision. Those were three things that he raised as questions and concerns. And similarly, the Senate took testimony from the Agency of Natural Resources in May. Again, with those same concerns that his administration had brought up. And he reiterated those concerns in his letter in August. So, again, I don't have any reaction to that, this similar to, I think my reaction to those back in February. I did respond to his letter and thanked him for bringing those questions to my attention again. And also thanked him for his administration's work on the bill. There were a number of things that the Agency of Natural Resources brought up that we did incorporate here. And that was the extent of our back and forth. So, Laura, did you have a comment or question? Well, I did. Now, I think Mark has brought up a really valid point. And it's one that has been raised to me as well around the appropriation and particularly in a time of COVID. And so I wanted to speak to why I absolutely believe this is appropriate. The reason for me feeling so strongly about this bill, sponsoring this bill, moving forward with this bill is I have seen, we have seen many in our committee have seen, many of our colleagues have seen the effects of a failure to plan for the future and for transformation, transformational technology in the rural areas. I think, just remind the committee, I won't get too far into it that that was my position, that our rural areas are incredibly vulnerable to climate change, the capacity to participate in energy transformation that is necessary to keep pace with the more densely populated areas, other states, other countries, which are changing our economy. Without this activity, we are dooming our rural areas where I live, where my people live. And because of the work that we did, I don't even remember how many witnesses we had. It had to be close to a hundred that we had in our committee prior to COVID because of the diligence that was done on this work. And because of the urgency, and I absolutely believe these dollars are critical for protecting Vermonters and ensuring that our economy does not further deteriorate particularly in our rural areas. So I think I just wanted to speak to that clearly. Thank you, Laura. Two more hands up, Heidi and then Mike. Thanks. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to reiterate as well. I mean, I should have done this earlier in my first comments, but the addition of the representative from the manufacturing sector is important. I think much of this bill I think is very good. My objection to it as the committee knows is that we give so much power. We essentially cede our authority and responsibility to the executive branch. And in that sense, I mean, I just don't think it's appropriate to give this much power to make policy to the secretary and the executive branch. Those policy decisions should be by us, by those who are elected by the people. So I appreciate the addition of the person on the manufacturing sector. I think a climate change plan is important, but decisions on how that should be implemented should not be promulgated or adopted by rule. It needs to be, the actual policies need to be voted upon by those who are elected in our seats. This is sort of the, I think I said this before, the legislative equivalent of the easy button from Staples because we don't have to be on the hook for voting on these policies. So I'm still very concerned about that section about that, how this is developed. The rest of the bill I think is important, including all of the things that Laura, that the representative from Dover just spoke about. I really like the resiliency efforts that are in there to ensure our communities can adapt to these changing weather patterns and what have you. So, but I think policy decisions need to be made by those of us who are elected. And that is my sole concern with this plan. And I wish, with this bill, and I wish the Senate had taken that on. I had hoped to be able to support a Global Woman Solutions Act this year. I think I made that clear. And this was my sole objection to it. And so I just wanna make sure that that is, that that's clear still with members of the committee and others. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, thank you, Heidi. I see Mike's hand up and then Mark. So, we are in the middle of a pandemic and that has taken priority since we passed this bill out of our committee in February. But we also gotta realize that we're also in the middle of, that's one crisis, but we're also in the middle of another crisis and that's a climate change crisis. And the fact that the pandemic has refocused our attention doesn't mean that we can't, we can stop attending to the climate crisis as well. This bill, in order to effectively respond in a way that's going to help us contribute our share to reducing fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, we need a plan. And this bill is a foundation for providing that plan for the state of Vermont. And I think it's an important piece of legislation and that I should pass. I'm done. I see Mark. Mark in? Go ahead. So the letter from the governor that I'm referring to is dated August 12th, 2020. Okay. So that's much later than the one you were referring to. No, I guess, so I'll just say I got a letter from the governor on August 12th. So it's probably, I don't know if it's the same letter or not, but that you're talking about. Yeah, it's to you and the speaker and Chairman Bray and Pro Tem Ash. Yeah. So I guess going back to the money that the Appropriations Committee is going to be looking at and not knowing how much they're going to put in for this year or whatever that process is going to be, I think that brings an issue to mind of a comment of Peter Walk during the Senate hearings that basically said that if there was no money and I'm sure he would be concerned about the amount of money that is even being appropriated, that he would not be able to do the job needed if there wasn't funds. And I don't know if anybody's ever asked him, you know, actually how much he would need to do an appropriate job. But I do remember his comments stating that they weren't going to, you aren't going to get the results you're looking for with the amount of money that's being appropriated. That's my take anyway. Yeah, and I think you're actually, I don't want to put words in your mouth Mark, so don't let me, but I think a bigger point and maybe one that you want to sign on to as well is if there is not money to support this bill in the budget, this work doesn't happen. And so I don't want to give you an avenue to defeat the bill Mark, but if this gets taken out of the budget, I think there's a big problem with this bill going forward. Well, and again, that's my point Tim, I mean, if this, I mean, you would mention it early on that the speaker wants this bill to go in concert with the appropriations bill, the big bill. Yeah, what if one of the other fails? I mean, yeah, that's, anyway, that's fine. No, I guess. So I'm sorry, I'm sorry I brought it up, no. No, I think, I mean, and I'll candor in transparency, that's what the speaker has said to me as to, you know, why we didn't take that, for example, why we didn't take this bill up two weeks ago or a week ago or this week. The reason she wanted to, to her credit, I think, hold off and bring this before the house is to see where this winds up in the budget process.  So there's your opening, Mark. Scott, I see your hand up. Yes, I just wanted to respond to Heidi's thoughtful comment about the legislature seating authority to the executive. And I think that we put in here, I think it was something like two pages of direction about what will be in the climate, what will be addressed by the climate plan. And we're, we're, we are telling the agency of natural resources to the climate council to direct the agency of natural resources to get this done. And we're doing that out of, out of, in response to the urgency of the problem and the, the, the time that it takes to plan and implement policies that are going to mitigate the effects of climate change and build resilience, especially in the rural areas for what's coming down the track that, that Vermont can't stop. So that, that's, that's my feeling about the direction and the idea that we're seating authority. I guess I don't think, I don't know what, how much more specifically could be than we have been in the direction that we're giving the climate council to come up with policies, come up with direction for, for A&R to implement the policies that we're, that we're telling them we have to implement. So I guess I just wanted to, to say that. I see two hands up, first Heidi and then Robin. So thank you, Scott, just in, in response. And I appreciate, I appreciate what you're saying. I truly do. And I know that the chair and the committee has worked hard on this. And I understand that I really just have two words. Act 46, that's it, that's, that is my fear. And it will inevitably happen. And things will happen that we never voted on. And, and we'll have to, we'll be, we'll be, and I think a lot of us, just like a lot of people who supported Act 46 who voted for it, regretted that decision afterwards. So as someone who voted against Act 46, I'm going to call on Robin. I did vote against Act 46. And I really appreciate the, you know, the thoughtful exchanges going on, on all sets here. And I guess I feel like there are a couple of safeguards built in, although, you know, Heidi's concerns about Act 46 show that they're not foolproof safeguards, but one is that, that regardless of what rules are adopted, no longer promulgated but adopted, any allocation has to come from, any financial allocation has to come from the legislature. So that's one check and balance on it. And another is the rules have to be consistent with legislative intent, which is the lens that Elkar views them through. And not to put full, Elkar is another check and balance, not full responsibility on Elkar. But because any agency or group of people can raise concerns about whether rules comply with legislative intent. So certainly I understand Heidi's concern, but there are a couple of checks and balances in place. Thanks, Robin. Laura. Tim, Tim, could we, could we, could we have Luke remove the screen of the bill? I don't know, so we need to see that. And it'd be nice to see other members. Thank you. Sure. Yep. Go ahead, Laura. So as someone who did vote for Act 46, I will say that we can't, we're the legislature. So we could repeal Act 46. We could make major corrections to Act 46. It's difficult to do, Act 46, you know, put together a really weird coalition, but we could make major changes to that. So I appreciate all of the points. Mr. Chair, I'm going to go out on them. Who is the, I can't remember who the person is with the quote that everything that has to, I feel like we're starting to circle. So I'm going to see if the committee is at this place or not, but I would like to make a move, a motion to recommend that we concur with the changes that the Senate has proposed to H688. I'll second that. Okay. So we can certainly vote on that as a committee. That doesn't necessarily mean that the discussion has to end or questions can arise. We've got a motion and a second, so thank you for that. But again, I don't want to let that end. I'm sorry, go ahead, Heidi. Who was the second? Mike. Okay, thank you. Again, I don't want to let that end discussion. If there's more comments people want to make or questions people have for Luke. So I'm not seeing any other hands go up. So, Heidi, if you don't mind calling the roll if you're able to do that now and just to be clear for the committee, the vote here is on whether this committee recommends concurrence with the Senate proposals of amendment to H688. Okay, so Mr. Chairman, we're ready for a vote. Yep, go ahead and call the roll, Heidi. Chestnut, Tangerman. Yes. Campbell. Yes. Chase. Yes. Higley. No. Pat. Yes. Scheuermann, no. Sebelia. Yes. Yantuchka. Yes. And Briglin. Yes. You're the reporter, right? Yeah, so as an administrative matter, I don't know if there's any paperwork that needs to be done on that other than me using that whenever the bill gets called up that that vote count. I can, yeah, that's fine. It's a, yeah, one, two, three, four. Yeah, you can use it. You can. Okay. Oh yeah, because it doesn't have to go to the clerk, right? That's what I don't know. I don't know the answer. I think it might not do. I can send it to her. Okay. When I reported S-337, I was told by Bill McGill to send an email to him and Rebecca and soberman, I guess, to that you are the reporter of the bill. Okay. And what's the point? So thank you, Luke, for joining us today. Really appreciate your help with this. I am going to just quickly, before we adjourn today, turn the committee's attention to some of the budget things that we talked about earlier this week and made a recommendation to the House Appropriations Committee. My understanding is that they are considering those today. And the only change that I've heard about, and it's actually not even a change, but the only thing that is different than I think the information that we were working with earlier this week is I believe that the Appropriations Committee is trying to put some money in the budget to support telecom planning. You all know that the recommendation that came from our committee on that, I think it was our lowest recommendation. So not exactly sure where that's coming from, but we'll see when the smoke comes out of the chimney of House Appropriations when they're done with their work, which again, I think is today. So we'll see. Other than that, I don't have any new news for the committee. Scott, did you have something you wanted to share? I just have a question about what committee meetings look like for next week. Do you have a thought about that? Yeah, I was just going to turn to that. I do not. If you give me just a second. This morning I was, actually it was yesterday, received an email from the speaker's office as to what next week's time slots are. So I beg your pardon. If you can just give me a second to pull this up. I can tell you what those are. So the slots that we have been allocated were the same as this week. So I'm not telling you to put these on your calendar in pen, just in pencil. But Tuesday from one o'clock to three o'clock, Thursday from 10 30 to 12 30, and Friday from 10 30 to 12 30. I can tell you that I'm pretty confident we're not going to use all three of those. One issue I know that, well, I don't want to say I know, I think as possible is going to come back to us is with regard to some of the CUD funding that we have recommended. And again, this is a truly unique budget year, I think, in that even as the budget, even as the budget goes through house appropriations and is hopefully on the floor next week, I think conversations are going to continue, particularly about the CUD funding that we recommended that $3 million, one and a half for a poll survey, one and a half for kind of equity funding to support VEDA loans. I think those two things are going to be hashed over quite a bit between the administration, between the Senate, JFO. There's questions about how confident are we that particularly the poll attachment funding or the poll survey funding is reimbursable under CRF. So I don't have anything definitive to give the committee right now, just to say that oftentimes we will make a recommendation to the Appropriations Committee and then we're done. And we don't see anything again until a few months later. I think that there is going to be some work on particularly that question and funding issue in the next week. So I am guessing right now that if we meet a couple of times next week, it is going to be on that issue. And my instinct at this point, Scott, and this is a really long-winded way of answering your question, is that those hearings that we would hold would be on Thursday and Friday next week, not Tuesday. So if you want to put the Tuesday hearing time in the lightest erasable pencil on your calendar, I would say that's the wisest thing to do and that we will be more likely to meet on Thursday and Friday. Okay, on that note, Tim, other than the emails we get from Danielle, could we get another way of giving us a heads up, especially if the meeting gets scheduled on the same day as supposed to occur? Something like a text message. Yeah, I think that is not too big of an ask. And I will also say that, and I'm trying not to be defensive here, some of this stuff is going on in real time. Some of these questions that come up and the ability to pull folks in to testify before our committee. But thank you for that, Mike. I will do my very best to give folks as much heads up as possible. So I don't have anything else for folks today. I think we're on the floor this afternoon at two. So absent any other comments? Thanks for the discussion today. Appreciate it. All right, take care. Have a good weekend, everyone.