Okay, we're live. Thank you, Theresa. We are now on YouTube. This is the Friday morning meeting of the House Appropriations Committee. We have, we only have about an hour, I think the committee members a full half hour before we go to the floor at 10 to make sure you're ready with your budgets. And I don't know about you, but not having my desk and things right in front of me like I'm used to, I need to make sure I'm organized in a different way than I am when I'm not feeling it. This morning we're going to do, we talked about S3-38 a couple of times we've taken testimony. Yesterday we spent some time for any final questions. So I'd like to take that up first and then we're going to move to the higher education language that will drop into the budget probably on third reading on Tuesday. Correct. And at 9.15 we have Steve and Stephanie here. There is a number sheet. We had some requests from members asking what the percentages are. So I want to make sure the committee is really clear what those percentages mean. And then we need to have next week schedule in hand. We're not meeting on Monday, but we need to meet Wednesday afternoon as we're going to meet a lot on Thursday and Friday because we are going to have quite a few hundred million dollars of CRF money on our plates with recommendations from policy committees that we need to sort out and turn around very quickly. So we, I just want to make sure that we're all set with our schedule on for next week. So let's start with S3-38 an act relating to justice reinvestment. Chip is not here. His ag committee is meeting regarding CRF funding. And so he didn't have any questions on the bill. We do have representative Shaw here. I don't see representative Emmons. I'm not sure if she is joining us. She's not representative toll. We're having a meeting downstairs right now. Then we'll get you right back to that meeting as I said. Thank you. Yesterday we talked about some different, someone has some background I'm hearing. Must be Peter's jazz again. Nope. We talked about funding opportunities due to the impact of the Corona virus. And I asked about further questions. So I'd like to know what the committee would like to do with S3-38. Are we going to move it if we are how or are we going to leave it on the wall for further consideration? What is the committee thinking?  So, Mary, I know a lot of pieces are within your sections too, with corrections. So tag, you're it. You're having a bit of, let me try this. Anyone need it? No, so you're both doing it at once. So let Mary do it. Go ahead, Mary. Unmute yourself. There you go. There we go. Sorry about that, guys. So I would propose that we move it without the money in it. It's an extraordinarily important policy bill that's been worked on by scads of committees on both sides of the body as a result of long-term work over the past year and a half to look at how we can fundamentally change the justice system and with the goal of having some savings within the system as well as being a more humane, effective system. There are policy differences between the House and the Senate version that need to get resolved. And so I think we need to release it so that they can begin the work on resolving it. The reason I suggest moving it without the money is because there is still work that needs to be done to see what the funding sources could be. And until we have a full and complete understanding of that I don't feel comfortable saying let's do it this way or that way from whatever pot of money. We heard from the policy committees that they were willing maybe to allow the use of the Chin's money but there was some reluctance to go that way. And so I'd like to keep pushing and understanding what other sources of funding could be rather than using up those precious resources. And maybe the last thing that I'll say is the Department of Corrections is still full tilt trying to understand kind of where they stand financially and what their ability is to put some money to this issue. So I would recommend taking the money out releasing it to the floor so that a conference committee or the resolution can be made of the other of the policy issues. Thank you, Mary. I did ask Teresa to put up on the screen. We received a letter from the women's legislative caucus specifically supporting this bill. And it has been, if you haven't received it you will receive it in your emails. And I just wanted to make sure we took note of this and it is in a letter of support for the policy within this bill to move from on forward especially for incarcerated women. Representative Helm. Yeah, can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes. All right. So if we move it without money, it goes to the floor. What happens at that point in time? We can't simply pass it because it needs money to do what the desired results are in it. So Bob, this would be an example where the money will catch up with the bill because there are a couple of options that we know of that would allow for this funding. And because of the guidance of the CRF dollars and what is included within those federal funds, we need to be absolutely sure that it appears and we feel strongly that this would be a CRF expense but we're crossing every T and dotting I's so that we're not caught by surprise if we learn otherwise but it appears that some or all of this could be paid for with CRF dollars. So that we're moving the policy and we'll make it clear on the floor that the money will follow. And we talked about, we have a couple of pots of money, the Chins money that it's one time in nature and this is truly a one time expense because the savings and take care of the program as it did before. Right. Yeah, okay, yeah, and I get that, but I just, so what we do is, and we've done it before, I know we pass a bill and it goes someplace and sits because it doesn't have any money. If we don't ever provide that money, that bill never gets accomplished, right? Yes. Okay, that's all I needed. No, thank you. Okay, I have Marty and then Mary and Kimberly. Well, I wanted to, I guess disagree with Bob's comment and hope Mary can confirm, but indeed it sounds like in section two regarding parole and presumptive parole and number eight regarding furlough and number 14 regarding good time and victims review and section 15 are all changes from the current law. And so that is making changes in policy of how we want to do something. I think that's worth a legitimate consideration on the house floor and that can happen. It doesn't cost money for those things to happen. And I think that's a good bit of what the sponsoring committee had in mind. Yes, it would be nice to have money to actually implement more community supports and the transitional housing and those kinds of things that go with it. But even without the money, the bill does have some, I believe some important power that would be in our interest to promote. Thank you, Marty. Thank you, that is correct. And I was focused on money and sometimes I need to broaden that look. I have Kimberly and Mary. Yeah, I just wanna echo both what Marty has said and what Mary has said. I'm also committed to finding support down the road somehow, some way, because I think this is really important work that's been done by so many people. And I've been engaged also with the women's caucus in terms of past visits to correctional facilities. And there's just a whole lot of people who care deeply about this bill. And I'm glad we're moving it today and I'm glad to keep working with whomever to make sure that it gets the support it needs in the future. Thank you, Kimberly. Your hand was up and then it was down. And I wanted to respond to Bob's comments. Marty had it exactly. And that's part of the reason I'm anxious to get it out of our committee because in fact, the two sides saw some of those policy differences, a wee bit, policy issues a wee bit differently and we need to get them to resolve it. There's a lot of good hard work here that will really change the system and we need to support it. Thank you. Are there any final questions or concerns with the bill clarifications that are needed? If not, Diane, I'm sure you have your book ready in front of you. You are muted, Diane. So I have a hearing that a motion to amend S338 as proposed by house appropriations, which is to remove section 24 if I'm looking at that correctly. Okay. Does somebody want to check that? First, we would need the amendment to remove the money section. Just strike that section. And I haven't looked that up. While we're looking that up, we have Butch who would like to join in the conversation, Representative Shaw. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your consideration of the bill and it's always disappointing when you lose your funds and appropriations but understandable in today's crisis. Our hope was that at least something would stay in the bill so that the house could drive the conversation when this bill goes to the Senate on the Reinvestment II appropriation. However, I understand what's going on and I'm hoping for some. I'm not sure what you're talking about, Madam Chair, with the Chins money. Can you explain that to me? There's a couple of one-time pots of money that have not been fully expended that could be available to us for use in areas in state government if needed. However, it is identified for very important use at this time that we hope to honor. Okay, well, thank you. We thank you for that explanation and I certainly support anything your committee decides. We'll bring the bill forward and defend the House position vigorously when we get the conference committee. And I wanna thank you all for your time and efforts on this and we'll move forward. This is a good, great bill and we can do good work with it in the position that it's in now. Thank you. I would say, Representative Shaw, that it appears the committee is committed to finding the funds and that the funds will, as I said before, that these funds could marry the bill later. And then join hands and become whole. I get that, thank you. How all of our marriages are, we're whole. Thank you, Kate. Okay. You're performing a lot of marriages. I know, I know. I feel like it's... Officiating, yeah. Diane, Representative Lanfair, do you have a motion for us? So if it pleases the committee, I move to amend S338 as proposed by House Appropriations to strike section 24. Is there a second? I have a second from Mehta. And is there any comments or questions at this point on the amendment? If not, the clerk shall call the roll. Representative Conquest. Representative Fagan. Yes. Representative Feltas. Yes. Representative Helm. Yes. Representative Hooper. Yes. Representative Jessup. Yes. Representative Lanfair. Yes. Representative Myers. Yes. Representative Townsend. Yes. Representative Yakovoni. Yes. Representative Toll. Yes, and I would ask that we leave the vote until ship returned. Okay, we have passed the amendment and now we're onto the bill itself as amended by House Appropriations. I would entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'd like to move that we report favorably on S338 as amended by the committee on Corrections and Institutions and further amended by House Appropriations. Is there a second? Second. Okay, I have a second from Representative Myers. Any final questions, thoughts, clarification needed? If not, the clerk shall call the roll. Representative Conquest. Representative Fagan. Yes. Representative Feltas. Yes. Representative Helm. Yes. Representative Hooper. Yes. Representative Jessup. Yes. Representative Lanfair. Yes. Representative Myers. Yes. Representative Townsend. Yes. Representative Yacoboni. Yes. Representative Toll. Yes. Leave it open for- Please leave that open for Chip as well. And who reports out this bill? Is this yours, Mary, or is this Chip's? Good question. I'm guessing it's me because the reason we had it was the underlying appropriation, which was to DOC and their mind. Perfect. So you will make sure it gets signed and what you need to virtually to the clerk's office. Yeah. One to make sure you- Diane will have to tell me how to do that. Thanks. Yes. With Theresa- Okay. Great, thank you. We are a little bit ahead of schedule and I see that we have two Ledge Council members from us. Jim DeMaris and Bryn Herre here and we're going to talk about the higher ed leverage. I just something popped into my mind and I don't want to forget it. I have asked the speaker to send the letters or the totals or the ranges that the duties of jurisdiction were given concerning CRF dollars. We did not receive one because we're working with the committees instead of we get to appropriate all of it actually and after they send their recommendations. And so just so that you know the ranges that were put in for housing, economic development, broadband, so that everyone has a clear picture what the committees are working on. And I asked those to be sent to Theresa and then folded on to all of you. So Theresa, I hope you've received those or will soon. I'm the speaker might need a reminder. She's quite busy these days. Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. I've been trying to track next to each committee what they had stated from their letters as to what they're working from just so we have a context when we receive their bills. Thank you. And we should be getting that. I requested it yesterday morning so we should hopefully get that soon. So let's see, we have Bryn and Jim, I have to look around my screen. Did we lose Bryn? So she was here for justice. Bryn was here for S338 and she just sent the amendment to us. Okay. And I'm gonna wrap that up and Representative Hooper, Representative Lankford, I'll create the email that you'll just reply to and confirm and the packages and all that stuff. I'm waiting to hear from Chip though. I may have to screen share before then so it just be patient. Okay. Okay. We have 15 or 20 minutes to review the education language that is, has been run with three different committees. Peter has taken charge of that from this committee and this is a language that would analysis of the higher education system in Vermont. So are we starting with Jim going over the language or Peter? How would you like to roll this out? Depends upon how much time you wanna assign to it. If you wanna go through it line by line, it may take longer than what you wanna do right now. It will be an amendment to our bill and will be formally presented to us next week by the amenders, which is Kate Webb et al. And you'll see that there. What I would like to talk about, go ahead. I can go through the concepts instead of going through the language, if you'd like me to do that. So I think what I would like to do is, since Jim is here and I would like him to leave, I would like him to do the broad strokes of the language, Peter, and then you talk about the concepts. And we need to be done at 9.15. Members, this is not going to turn around quickly. This would be a Tuesday issue. And so if we need to come back and meet over this or we send a communication to Peter for any speaking that we think might be needed. So, Jim, would you like to just walk us quickly through the sections? And then we'll have a weekend to work on. Sure, yeah. And so for the record, Jim DeMaria, that's console, reviewing this amendment by individuals on the education committee. I want to first to thank Joyce for her work on this. She's done a ton. And I put this into a sector of language. She's really developed this. So thank you, Joyce. So I just lost, hold on, where'd it go? Okay, so it creates the select committee on the future of public higher education in Vermont. It will assist Vermont in developing a vision and plan for high quality, affordable and workforce connected future for public higher education in the state. The membership, I'm not sure who's there to control this document, is it me? Teresa does, she'll move it down, Teresa. There you go. And we don't have to go through each piece of the membership as we can read through those. Okay, so they're up to 22 members. The concept is basically there's gonna be a steering group which we'll get to in a minute. And the steering group will be naming some of these members. So as you see that, that's what's happening when the references to the steering group. If you scroll down through the membership toward the end of the membership, you've got two possible additional members in L. That would be at the discretion of the steering group. So it's 20 plus possible two more. And then the committee member may be appointed to fill more than one role. And that's the sign that keeps the numbers down if they can be kept down. The steering group that's being created by this and the members are five members and three are chosen by the speaker and the portem and two by the governor that provides leadership to the committee and works with a consulting firm. And it's authorized to form one or more subcommittees of the committee to address key topic area. Collaboration just simply the committee will seek input and collaborate with key stakeholders. That's designed to keep the numbers down on the committee for have people have the ability to give input to it. Powers and duties of the committee are three main things they're doing. So the leading language talks about building and previous studies offer recommendations on increasing affordability access, retention, attainment, et cetera. And then specifically there are three areas and these three areas tied to reports that will be issued by the committee which all come to an end. The first is looking at the financial sustainability of the public higher education structure. And its impact on capacity. The second is to look at the organizational structure of public higher education. And the third is to look at the tie-in to work with the other goals. The three broad areas are looking at. JFO and collaboration with the New England Board of Higher Education, NEVY would issue a request for a proposal of a higher consultant to assist the committee and that has to be in place by the end of June. The assistance is coming from JFO and from NEVY and NEVY is doing project management. I think on July, is that July, not June? Oh, yeah, July, I'm sorry, end of July, I'm sorry. Reports, so as I mentioned there are monthly reports. So there are three reports. The first is due by the point of this year focusing on the first group of duties we talked about, which is the financial side. The second report is due June 15th of next year looking at organizational structure and on the workforce development. And the final report would call it the findings from the earlier reports and include the action plan. And that's due by December 15th of next year. There's reports of delivery to the governor and the joint assembly. And then importantly, the speaker of the House in part 10 would select the chair of the committee. And with six, it's just on January 31, 2022. Typical compensation reimbursement language here. So nothing special. And J, we just move on to the next subsection.  So number three talks about the number, sorry, here. Talks about the number of meetings for which they would get reimbursed. So it assumes for each fiscal year, 2021-22, six in-person meetings of the committee, eight in-person meetings of the steering group and four remote meetings of up to four subcommittees a ceiling compensation reimbursement for up to five members of each subcommittee. And then appropriations, there's an appropriation of $40,000 approximately for per day compensation and reimbursement. And then two talks about transferring money from another section of your bill to fund the consultant. So I think JFO can explain that better than I can. And then last, we had to change the effective date because we had to work in this new section. So if you scroll down further, all we're doing is we're adding the second line mayor of reference to A9, going effective upon passage. Okay, and so before we ask questions, I would ask Peter to talk about some of the broad strokes now, you know, how it landed in the structure and also Peter the timeline. Can we tighten that or do we have to stay as it is? So let me start with how this all transpired. This was, this is a very much shortened version of what had originally been proposed. Kate Webb and I talked and I can't remember who else was what's a part of that discussion. And just it was, oh, Peter Conlon and a couple of others. But at any rate, it was just very, very dictatorial as far as do this, do that and did not allow for the exploration of alternatives that might come up while they're going through their work. So we coalesced around an idea of getting enabling language in the budget and this is what you see. And then a letter from the committee chairs will be sent to the basically states, make sure you look into these areas and these concepts. That letter is, there's a lot of pieces to it. I don't have any of the pieces, but Kate is managing that and that letter will be produced for the chair of education, the chair of commerce and our chair of appropriations. And one would presume that the Senate counterparts will be asked to sign it, but I can't speak to that. So that's number one. I just wanna go through the timing and then the appropriation piece. As far as my input to policy, other than the two individuals that were added just in case, I was, as I term it, working in the background on Zoom meetings, just listening because I'm not a part of that policy committee. If I was asked, I offered, but they were stuck on how do we get other people involved that they really could use and so that's the piece I offered is let's do it to two people floaters. And so that's the only piece in there that is really my handiwork. So just to run down briefly the timing here, the steering group, the five members of the steering group that comes from the total committee of 2020 up to 22 people, those five members shall be appointed by 29 June. The speaker and the pro tem shall collaborate to a point three, the governor shall appoint two. At the same time, JFO and Nebbi are going to release an RFP to hire a consultant. The RFP shall be released by the 17th of July with the intent to select by 31 July, very tight timeframe. The first committee meeting shall be called in August on the 28th. That'll give enough time for the steering committee, for UVM, for Vermont State Colleges to determine who their participants shall be. And Jim did a great job, so I'm not really gonna get into any of the intricate pieces here, but the Nebbi is project manager support to the committee. And since we have been paying them all along, Kate asked them to do this as part of the funds that we've been paying them, they have agreed. So they are at no additional cost to the state. The funding for this, the $40,000, it is going to the agents of the Secretary of Education and I have talked to Kate Webb this morning, who will talk to the Secretary. The Secretary was chosen, it needs to be an executive branch, someone from the executive branch somewhere. JFO does not pay people. They may move funds around, but they don't pay individuals. So that doesn't work. So then it's between the legislature and an executive branch function. Really not appropriate for the legislature pay function to pay these individuals. So because we don't normally do that. So it came down to a member of the executive branch and the best option that we could think of was Secretary of Education. So that's how we landed there. The funding for this section, and I'm trying to remember off the top of my head here, wait a minute, I can go right to it. A4B, that's our bridge funding section of the bill. Right now it has $5 million of general fund allocated to it. That's A3 and not A4. I don't have our bill in front of me. I have the proposed higher ed language bill in front of me. So we need to double check that out. It's within section A3, small letter B. Yes. Madam chair, I received some language last night, kind of late from Stephanie and they were renumbering things and she assured me that it would be A4. So it may be changing as we speak, I don't know. Okay, then I need a new bill before I go to the floor in half an hour. But we'll get that number right. Well, I mean, if it gets renumbered because this is being amended, it's okay. We'll fix that, yeah. Yeah, it's okay. So whatever number it is, the $5 million of general funds that are the bridge funds and whatever is added to that, that's where the funding for the consultant will come out of. I like the idea of pulling it out of there for a few reasons. Number one, we don't have a whole lot of additional general fund dollars. Well, I should restate that. We don't have any additional general fund dollars. The interim chancellor, she wasn't fond of it but she did not object to the funding for this coming out of that. And by doing it this way, we are not signaling to any consultant groups, this is how much you can bid for it. Typically, we'll put up to $300,000 and guess what the bid is, $300,000. So nobody knows. This way, hopefully we'll get a good universe of consultant groups that are capable of doing this job and to help us figure out what the future should look like so that we can move towards it. And that's it, Kitty. Thank you. Thank you very much, Peter. So we have about five or 10 minutes before we move to the joint fiscal office for another piece. Are there questions for either legislative council or Peter on some of this language or need to be included? I have Bob and Kimberly. Okay, there we go. Oh, there you go, Bob. Okay, on a side note that probably most of you won't wanna hear. We've got this one. This is the first of what I see as three so far coming out in a series spread out over a couple of years. All right? Some place I would like, and I'll tell you, it's at a time in, I believe in Vermont State College history that is crucial. Because after this is all said and done they're either gonna be propped up or they're gonna be out of business, all right? One or the other, whichever it is needs to have, I believe, historical explanation in writing. So what my thoughts are is, and I just want y'all to think about this for now as we go along, how can we put together a, well, if you will, whatever you wanna call it, which includes all of the developments through the financial process of trying to prop up the Vermont State Colleges and put it into a document that is sealed as accurate and something that in 10 years somebody can go back and look into and see, wow, this is what they did to save Vermont State Colleges or whatever, that's all I wanna do is put this down. Memorialize it. Exactly, yeah, yeah. So Bob, we will have that conversation and find the group that would help to collate all this information, get it in one place and keep it for future decisions. I'm not sure what that is right now, but Peter, do you have a thought? Well, I do have a thought and I don't know if this answers the question, but certainly it can be a piece of it. This group is going to pull all the past studies off the shelf to ensure that anything that is relevant that was done in the past is considered as part of this and then put together their study and the last thing they do is they'll issue an action plan at the end of next year, by the end of next year to move forward. That action plan could encompass, probably ought to encompass just as a statement upfront, these are all the things that have been done in the past and this is what we need to do now to be able to go to the future. Peter, would you please circle around with the education committee and ask how this can all be put in a file together and the file would stay not only with house education, but also it should go to the institutes of higher education, the public ones. Thank you, Bob. So that it would be housed within the state colleges, UVM and the education committee, Bob, a file with all this information. That's a good point because right now I think VSAC is the holder of all of it. And maybe VSAC would hold it too so it could be in several places and in 10 years we could at least try to get our hands on one of them. Thank you, Bob. Several places would be good, actually. Yep, it's always better. Kimberly and Mary. Hi, I'm missing the whiteboard at this moment. Just want to clarify there, you have the per diem, in terms of funding, you have the per diem, you have the five million in bridge funding or whatever figure is ultimately agreed upon and the consulting fee comes out of the five million bridge. Did I get that correct? That is correct. So, and Kimberly, the $40,000 is to pay for monitors. The legislative piece will come out of our, the JFO summer study piece that Steve has told me, we got it, no issues. So that's not what we did in here. Yeah, it says legislators shall be paid the way we normally do for summer studies, but we haven't assigned any money to that because funds are available. But the Vermonters that would need to be paid would come out, that would come out of that piece and the analysis would come out of the bridge funding. We would include that in the bridge funding. Bingo. Mary, thank you, Kimberly. Were you done before I moved to Mary? Mary? I just wanted to appreciate what Bob suggested. I think that's a terrific idea. And so thanks for that, Bob. I just have a process question. You were concerned about getting the right number today, Kitty. We are not dropping this on the bill today, correct? Tuesday, well, on Thursday. So we will have a, I'm not reading this right now and I want to sit down and reflect on it. Yeah, that's your weekend reading, Mary. Oh, is that it? That's all I have to do. Yes. And watching a whole bunch of videos to see, you know, what policy committees are talking about with CRF funding. Peter, can you tell me there's an interim report to be filed December 20th of this year. And I'm just trying, I'm looping back up through the bill to see what that report will address. Okay, so that's the first of three reports, if you will. The last one's an action plan. This one talks about the, let me just make sure that they don't alert us. Financial sustainability of the public higher education structure and its impact on institutional capacity to innovate. In other words, we need to make sure that we continue to move toward the future and meet state goals and learners' needs, including in that a comparison of higher education programs across all the delivery places, delivery models, i.e. distance learning, sitting in the seats or a combination thereof and then also look at the structures in other states, the educational structures in other states. So that's the first report to end of this year. So would you envision legislative action being necessary in the first year of the next biennium? Or do you anticipate that to be in the second year, which is always harder? But just wondered, would there be any action needed? So this is conjecture on my part, truly, because it will really depend upon what this report says. I think that when the report is delivered, unless all of a sudden the system itself has an influx of students that makes it much more viable to the future, I think that if that happens, then this becomes much less an urgent issue. If that does not happen, I think it would behoove us to do something at that point in time. That's my conjecture. Thanks. It's up in the air then. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Peter. Thank you, Dave. Diane? Oh. Well, now I am. So not that this is now, but that the A9 is hanging out there, that I thought this language, we were saving space in section A9 that's reserved. Yes. So there might be a bunch of changes coming, but I'm just hanging that out there. Yep. So A9 is where we'll put it in the bill on Tuesday. Thank you, Diane. You're welcome. Kimberly? I think I just found it. I was looking for the place where student voice would come in and I think I see it now, page two at the top, line three. Okay. Nevermind. Thank you. Any other questions for Peter? Diane and Dave, are your hands up new or are they from before? Okay. And so Peter, I'm sure there will be continued tweaking of the language. I'm hoping that the speaker has seen it and she has roles within this and has weighed in and it's a bit of a work in progress and so the committees may all work as it still travels to the Senate and travels back to us. Right. And Kitty, I just want to make a, also a few thank yous because Joyce Manchester really did Yeoman's work in doing this. The New England Board of Higher Education, NEMI, really a lot of work in doing this and then to all of a sudden dumping into Jim Demere's lap and say, here you go, figure it out. Jim really did a good job as well. This was a very much larger, it would have had to have gone as a bill. We couldn't have amended it based upon the first cut but they all did a good job and a lot of, and I know at least twice when I clicked off it was, okay, Joyce and Jim and NEMI, you're going to collaborate, we're all going away and they did so they did very well. So I just want to thank all. Thank you, Peter. And thank you, Joyce and Jim. We appreciate it and we know it was a lot of work over the last few days to get it to this point and we appreciate that. Okay, we are going to, oh, I want to ask of the committee before we go further. The funding mechanism right now to use the bridge funding, do we have support from the committee? If you are supportive of using that mechanism, can I have a hands up or a virtual hander? Okay, we're unanimous there, so we're good. Steve, you sent us a document. We had some legislators yesterday outside of the committee that asked about percentages. This was a language bill, really built on language and percentages but I believe it was Maria from the time yesterday coming up with a sheet that looks like this, Teresa, if you would put it up. And I didn't ask the calls to members who had contacted me with particular on what the theme. And so I would like to see if you would like to walk. Yeah, and Stephanie's in the room too if we need to. I am, I look like I'm on Maria's but we're both in the office today. And Stephanie, I think you worked on this as well with Maria, so thank you to both of you. I know it was a tremendous amount of work. There's this sheet and then there's also the coronavirus tracking sheet. So there's two fiscal sheets. Yeah, this one I'll just go through quickly and then Stephanie can answer any copy of questions but the general fund is listed at 36% even though we know it's 25 because there's a lot of items that we funded up front like the pensions, the debt service and state colleges and extra five million. So all of those types of things bring the number from the 25 to the 36%. Transportation fund is 58. I think it was, we funded a lot in advance. I don't think we funded the TIP in advance but I think the Y-58 is different than the 60 is the reason there. It's also, it probably has to do with state police because they're only in at 25% of their transportation fund but the rest of the agency of transportation is in at 60%. Okay, and special funds includes the pilot money and that's why it's higher than the 25 because we fully funded pilot which is about an eight million dollar item. So that may have been what brought it up to the full 32. Well, the other piece in the 32, sorry to see is that we did 50% of A&Rs funding and they have a lot of special funds. So that's what we're gonna do. Tobacco funds, state health care resource fund are 25. Fish and Wildlife, the education fund did 100%. Fish and Wildlife at 50 just because of timing issues of when those dollars roll out the door, right? Yes, it's part of the whole, you did the entire agency of natural resources at 50%. Thank you, thank you. And the federal funds will probably reflect the transportation funding being higher. Exactly. Plus the CRF money. No, CRF money is not included in this total. Oh really? It's on a separate sheet. Okay, so there's probably more related to the, whether it's the transportation fund and other matching funds like that. So there were some large ticket items that really did push these numbers mostly in the general fund because we're obligating, we're not paying. That's correct, Stephanie, tell me if I'm correct. We're obligating the money that we will have it, but we're not going to push it all out the door the first quarter for debt and pension obligations. Is that correct? I'm confirming that, but for the past several years we actually have moved the money, the large amount of state general fund dollars out the door early in July from the state into the system. I don't know if that's, we're checking on the cash flow implications of that on the Senate side, but that, it wouldn't be surprised if that happened with the retirement pieces. The other piece that you have included in that general fund total obviously is the pay act piece in the back of the bill. Oh, okay. So that would, okay, and pay act. That one does not go out. I mean, a big chunk of it goes out in July, but the rest of it does not necessarily. I'll go out in the first quarter. Okay. Committee questions. I have Marty. Yeah, my question is related to that actually spending the money out the door. Do you know what the prospect is on the education fund? So the education fund- Are we gonna take that money and spend it out the door? No. I mean, 34% goes out roughly. We goes out in, I think it's in September and September. And that the rest of it should not be going out the door until later in the year. Okay, thank you. Oh, let's see. I have two other hands to see who they are. Dave. So are we in effect looking at, if you look at the 1.6 billion general fund to act 88, and then you take away the 600 million. And so that leaves about a billion of general fund left for the August, September budget. And are we looking at about a $200 million hole now? Yeah, but there's two things to remember. One is that the general fund in August will have to be higher than that because when you did the bill, when the governor did the original 21 bill, it was not 1.655, it was 1.7. There's a little bit more in what we expected to spend in 21. And you're correct. There's still this $230 million shortfall, but that'll probably change between now and August. I'm hoping it changes for the better and gets down a little bit. Plus we're also doing everything we can to find ways to use CRF creatively. We're hoping that you don't have that problem. A lot of movement left to come. Initially, I think we needed a 14% reduction in looking at this. I said, oh, we need a 20% reduction, but it's just too many moving parts to say that at this time. Right, and you have to remember that there is already rolling forward from this year to next year. Oh, I don't know what's going on. There's some money rolled forward. I think it's about 30 or $40 million and there'll be some carry forward. So you'll have other pieces that we just haven't incorporated. And the other thing to think about in August, December is to the extent that this, and this is the downturn of 230 is a double type of problem. One part of the problem is a one year shortfall and the other part is an ongoing reduction in revenue. To the extent that it's a one year issue, it doesn't, we shouldn't rule out using reserves because there is a case of reserves and rainy day funds, which could be used to cover the sort of the hasm of FY 2021. You don't wanna use reserves if it's the ongoing shortfall. So I think in August, a lot of those decisions will be on the table. I'm following you. Thank you. Thank you. So I think that we can easily explain these percentages on the floor to members, you know, what is pressing some of them and any final questions is we need to move to the CRF sheet. Okay, Teresa, could we move to the CRF sheet? Do we have that one, Madam Chair? It's coming up. And Maria can go over this if you want to. Was this sent? I hope this was sent. I didn't see it. I just got it and I have to apologize because my outlook completely died in the middle of the meeting. So I will send it as soon as I stop sharing here. Okay. These are just the totals of where we've spent CRF money and they're on all of those COVID trackers. You know, we can talk on any of those, but this is one that's handy for the floor. And so while we're waiting for it, I think that we can talk about it. Steve, do you want me to talk about it? You're gonna talk about it? Either way, Maria prepared this. Maria? Maria? Yeah. Hi. So are you ready for me to talk about it? Yeah. We're gonna talk about it and we'll jump up on your screen, but the numbers are in all of these COVID trackers. So go ahead, Maria, please. Okay. So this is a summary document and it includes the big numbers. So you'll see that it's the CRF dollars from the 1.25 billion and it's from the house perspective. And is it up yet? Is the document up yet? Yes, it must be. I'm looking at it. Oh my gosh. Okay, so the first thing approved by JFC on May 12th, that's the tier one and tier two spending, that 167 million, you can access if you wanna know the details, the link there is a live link. It's also on the Joint Fiscal Office website if you go to the Joint Fiscal Committee. And then there was a total of 225 million, I believe that was set aside for the JFC to allocate. So they only allocated 167 million of that, that leaves a balance of 57 million that I have on the second line, well line seven, let's say, it's the JFC allocation to be determined. And then on the eighth line, adjustment for FEMA items, that's what we estimate at this point might be covered by FEMA. So that's why it's a negative number. I'm sorry. Was there a question? Clearing up a voice. I'm sorry, I need to mute myself because I'm... Oh, okay, all right, sorry. Okay, so then the next line, the H953, the supplemental BAA, that's the combined number for the House and Senate what was added in CRF funds in that bill. We also, the House also passed out the H951, which is the municipal lending bill of 2.7 million. The next line down line 11 is the Treasurer, this hazard pay true up. We don't have a number for it, but I thought I should include it in this document. It has to do with allocating funds for the retirement system. And we'll hear more about that, I think when the Treasurer has a chance to estimate what it should be. And then the next number down on line 12 is H961, which is the bill that you're looking at today. And that has a total of $47.3 million appropriated in it, which gives you a total allocation of 265.9 million. And then if you just reduce that the 1.25 billion by this 265.9, it gives you a remaining CRF balance of 984. And this, as I mentioned, it doesn't account for other bills out there that haven't been passed by the House. And so, you know, you have heard of other things, but they're just not accounted for on this document. And so for the House position, there's $984 million left that we know has not been assigned at this point. And from that piece, there will be, this is what committees of jurisdiction are working on. And they are not going to spend the full $900 plus million dollars. We are going to, I believe the speaker and others are thinking of pulling back some dollars in case guidance changes and it can be used to replace lost revenue. And so that's why committees of jurisdiction are working on two different numbers. They're working on what we can get out the door now for economic development and housing and agriculture, you know, whatever, all those pieces broadband. And then a second phase, which can be built in the first or different items for remaining dollars depending on what's available in August and September. So the big numbers for the floor today are we've spent to date about $266 million and we have 984 remaining. And this brings us right to 930. I think that we're in good shape for the floor. Stephanie, Maria, Maria, thank you, Stephanie and Steve, thank you for this information. It's very helpful. I just want to quickly go over the schedule for next week because we are going to need big chunks of time for Monday. Madam Chair, can I just jump in quick and just ask representative Conquest how we'd like to vote before we... Please, please. On the amendment to representative Conquest that was a motion to hold off on the appropriation so we remove section 24. How would you like to vote on that amendment? Yes. Thank you. And then on the full bill, representative Conquest how would you like to vote on S338 as amended? Yes. Thank you. I assume there was discussion about the money. Deep and wonderful. How we might make sure that we fund it one way or another. Yes. I think representative Cooper will be recording this on the floor and she could answer those questions so we don't take time now. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Diana. Thank you, Chip. So if you would like to get your calendars out wherever you do your calendars, I do not think we need to meet on Monday because committees of jurisdiction are not going to be anywhere near having their work done. Tuesday we're on the floor from 9 to 10.30 and 3.30 to 4.30 but I wanna leave you open on Tuesday to be listening in on these committee discussions. Wednesday morning I would like to leave open because I bet there's going to be a lot of scurrying to get these bills done by noon. And we're on the floor at 2 but I think I'm going to have to ask permission from the speaker for us to be working because we've gotta turn this around quickly and we can't turn it around if we're not in committee. So Wednesday we're going to start getting these bills hopefully before noon and by noon. Do we wanna do it in two sections so we have a bit of a break like from 12 to 1.30 and then maybe 2.30 to 4 or do you wanna do one long session? What's your pleasure? One long session for me. Peter's two, Bob's one. They're all long. One and one and a break. We could have some breaks in there. Yeah, I guess we could do a big chunk of time and then just take a committee break like we do anyway. Teresa, what is best for you working and keeping us on Zoom? What would be best? If you do whatever you want, I'm flexible. I mean, I can make it work. However, people wanna do it. Judy. I will guarantee that if the vast majorities of committees will not have something to us by noon. That's forever memorialized. Well, but we just know how hard this is for our colleagues. So I would suggest a little later in the day and somehow we're going to need time to into the really digest what they're sending. So maybe we gather at one, see what we have and then take a break and then really rock and roll later in the afternoon. So let's do one to four, 30 or five and we'll break it up as we need. I'm gonna put in one to five. Okay. Yeah, and then in the morning, be ready to gather. So we may not be officially meeting, but we're gonna be getting information all morning long, right? Right. And I'm sorry, I'm sorry on Thursday. Kitty, Wednesday afternoon, we have a house floor. I'm going to get permission for us to not be there because unless there's a critical bill and somebody could step off to go down and do a bill, we've got to go schedule. I believe or we'll never get this work done. Depends on what's on the calendar, I guess, but I'm thinking if there's anything. I guess we could duel and Teresa could let us know of votes and we could have dueling screens and new work. I could listen to the floor. And she can keep us surprised of what's on the floor. I have a 30 second delay with the YouTube, but it still should be okay. Okay. So we're just to read, so it's one to five on Wednesday, the 10th. And then Thursday, let's meet from 8.30 to, I think we have to meet until 11.30 and we'll take a break in there or we're not going to get done. We've got a tremendous amount of work to do. And then break at 11.30 with a break before that. Come back at one o'clock and let's plan until 4.30 and we'll break in the middle of that too. And then Friday, we're on the floor at 10, but if we could get started at 8.30 and let's work until 9.99. Maybe we can skip floor that day too. I'm hoping we can. Depending on what's, yeah. Well, let's do the same thing, 8.30 to 11.30 again. And if I don't know if we can get this out Friday, let's just put in, I'm really sorry to do this. No, it's okay. No, let's get it done until 4.30. One to what? One to 4.30 and I'm really sorry. The sooner we get this done, the sooner we get a summer break. This is true. We gotta go track the Senate. So I just, maybe our hopeful goal to get them voted out on Friday night. That would give. Progressive, but wouldn't that be nice? That would be really nice. It would give the JFO and everybody the weekend. And then we could, you know, wherever we're at, come back with that kind of weekend overview. Remember that JFO has to prepare this work. Yeah. Yeah, we give them, we give them that, like we usually do with the budget. It's like. So I think we probably ought to count on meeting at 8.30 on Monday. Oh yeah. The next Monday, you're talking next week. No Monday the 15th. Yes. I'm holding off on that one. I'm not. I'm already put it in. I'm gonna do Giddy. Yup. So Giddy, we should bet on it. Giddy, so we need to establish a time to hear amendments to the budget before third reading because I know we're gonna have one. Okay. That would be. That should be on the floor. Is it nine o'clock on Tuesday? Let's meet at 8.30. It's 8.30 enough time, do you think? We've heard it already. Everyone will have an opportunity to read it. It's coming from a policy committee. You know, we're good with where the funding is coming from. I think half an hour ought to do it. Okay. Let's 8.30 committee for amendments. Thank you, Peter, for that. So. What day are we gonna do that? Let, yeah. Tuesday. That's the ninth. No, no, no. Tuesday the ninth. Oh, okay. Thank you. Okay. Giddy. Yes. I've got an issue. I have a doctor's appointment at 9.20. In Rutland. So that means I have to leave here by quarter to nine. I probably get home about 10.15. Okay. So we're on the floor from nine to 10.30. You may miss third reading of the bill, Bob. I know. Okay. I know. And if you have any issues with that language, you need to talk to Peter if you're going to be gone when we vote it. Okay. So, so Giddy, did I just wanna check to see if I, am I on? In the right spot. On Tuesday, the ninth, we're also on the floor from 3.30 to four. Or what was? No, that's a caucus. Oh, okay. Thank you.  You have a question? Yeah, I have a question about all of these CRF requests. They're gonna come in from various committees allocating some of that $964 million, whatever. Then is the idea, we will put all that together in one single bill and say we appropriate this for this and this and this and this and this. Yep. So we will sort through the requests that we get, vet them, decide which ones we think are appropriate or not and present one bill with all of them together. Yep. That's a lot of work. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's because we can do it. I have everything. Okay. It's just all of them. All right, I'll see you on the floor. Where our bill is up first and everyone is fully prepared. And I think we're ready to go. Trisha, I'm sending this. What's that? I'm sending the photo. I'll wait for the email from you. So I sent the email to you and Mary and to the whole group that you need to reply all to. All right, I'll find it. There it is. Okay. And I'm gonna go off live now.


Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Walter Mather. Seldom in history has one man captured so completely the heart, the mind, and the imagination of a people as did General of the Army Douglas MacArthur. In a military career that spanned more than half a century he fought hard in the cause of freedom and justice. He was one of the most resourceful field commanders of his era. A brilliant chief of staff and a military governor whose wisdom and fairness have set new standards for military statesmanship. His campaigns in the Pacific will serve as models of strategy for generations of soldiers still unborn. His greatness as a strategist can be explained in one sentence. He attained his objective quickly, decisively, and with minimum American losses. The drama and excitement of his brilliant career was expressed in an historic speech he made before a joint session of Congress. Mr. Walter Cronkite, the noted commentator, now brings you the MacArthur story. I am closing my 52 years of military service. When I joined the Army, even before the turn of the century, it was the fulfillment of all my boyish hopes and dreams. The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plane at West Point. Indeed, much has happened to the world since Douglas MacArthur took the oath at West Point and in the wars and the periods of peace since. He has often been a central and dramatic figure. The beginning of an extraordinary career. Young Douglas with his father, General Arthur MacArthur, boy Colonel in the Civil War and veteran of the Philippine Campaign in the Spanish American War. One day when the son was 13 years old, his father has said to have remarked, I think there is the material of a soldier in that boy. A truth that was soon made clear. Addering West Point, he showed extraordinary brilliance in his studies, attaining an average that was the highest in a quarter of a century. And he won the coveted A in athletics as well. Twenty-five years later, he was to lead the American team in the world Olympic Games. Meanwhile, the campaign in the Philippines was being brought to a successful completion under his father's Aboard leadership. The son was eager to visit these battlefields and after West Point, his first assignment was to survey areas of these islands. One of these was the Baton Peninsula, where he was to fight many years later in a desperate but heroic struggle. During the following years, Lieutenant MacArthur had opportunities to study the entire far Eastern area, gaining an insight into the attitudes and feelings of people's hardly known by the West. At the beginning of World War I, the plan was to use only regular army divisions to oppose the powerful German army. Meanwhile, outside these divisions, America had many trained and able men. A proposal for a new division of National Guard units from as many states as possible was vigorously advocated by a major Douglas MacArthur. Said he, it will spread over the whole country like a rainbow. The idea for the rainbow division, the 42nd, was his. And he worked constantly to see that the division was well trained and equipped for the raging battle that awaited it in France. The rainbow division moved up to the front. Its full readiness through the efforts of Colonel MacArthur and the division's chief of staff was to prove fortunate indeed. It was during this period too that an impressive battlefield tactician began to prove himself and to foreshadow a great military future. Soon long for brilliant decisions on the battlefield, Colonel MacArthur was also to gain a reputation as a man who faced danger completely unafraid. Before long he was in command of the rainbow division, the youngest American division commander in the war. Twice wounded, twice gassed, he won more awards for valor than has ever been awarded to an American soldier. It was acclaimed by the Secretary of War and General Pershing as the greatest frontline general of the war. Returning to West Point, he became the youngest superintendent the Academy had ever had. Here he brought in the curriculum to include a full college education and introduced a now widely followed program of intramural athletics. Today, here, he is assembled and an inspiration. In 1930, MacArthur was appointed chief of staff with the rank of full general. During his term of office, much of his time was spent in building an army that had been pared down to only 60,000 combat soldiers. A most difficult effort when an attitude of pacifism dominated the nation. In keeping with this principle of examining the military situation at close range, he toured Europe to observe the forces of other nations. In France, he was recognized once more for his outstanding military contribution to the Allied cause. In Germany, he foresaw the build-up for war. Back home, he begged his country and Congress to realize that the United States was in danger. As chief of staff, he foresaw the need for a new type of army, mechanized, mobile, and insisted that our defense force become capable of rapid expansion. Recognizing his abilities, President Roosevelt broke precedent by reappointing the youngest chief of staff we have ever had to a second term. In the 20s, MacArthur had served in the Philippines and in the 30s, he was asked to return as their military advisor. A deep mutual regard between the Filipinos and MacArthur grew during this period.  In 1935, he began a 10-year plan to build up the defense of the Philippines. In World War II, it was to be these forces that MacArthur would lead in a desperate fight and on this ground. But now, the leader, at 57, having served in the United States Army for 34 years, decided to retire. Four years later, it was as though his military career were just beginning. A few months before the attack upon Pearl Harbor, MacArthur had been recalled to active service in the Philippines. On the day after Pearl Harbor, the Philippines too were under attack. Defense here was pitifully hampered by lack of men and planes. With his knowledge of past campaigns, particularly those of his father in this very area, MacArthur withdrew his meager forces into the mountains of the Bataan Peninsula. From the rocky fortress of Corregidor, he directed an operation as crucial as any in the war. This early campaign in the Philippines, the heroic fighting by a lonely army of Filipinos and Americans for almost half a year, caused a critical delay in the Japanese timetable of attack. Back at home, the leader of the first desperate ground fighting became a symbol to a nation just beginning to gird itself for all out war. The people found in him what they were beginning to discover in themselves, a spirit of intense determination. Suddenly, MacArthur was ordered by President Roosevelt to regard him as our greatest general to leave to carry on the fight from Australia. Leaving the Philippines hurt him deeply. As always, he wished to be at the front beside his comrades. When finally they were forced into the infamous March of Death on Bataan, his promise to them was, I shall return. They believed him implicitly. Until his arrival in Australia, the plan had been to await the Japanese attack and prepare as well as possible. Then it became apparent that the new Southwest Pacific commander had another plan. He had meant exactly, I shall return. He was determined to carry the war to the enemy, to New Guinea, which was the direct route back to the Philippines. A long struggle lay ahead against huge numbers on countless islands. There seemed to be but one way. Blast the enemy from every one of his island positions in the Pacific. Victories came, but they were costly. Was there some other way? Knowing the area, knowing the enemy, utilizing all our air and naval skill, the commander developed his plan to capture only a few key positions on the way to the Philippines. Now, against these key positions, the pattern of attack. First, have a preparatory fire to soften up the objective. Next, the landing. These were varied, unpredictable. In each case, the selection was dictated by strategy rather than by sympathetic terrain. There were many beaches. Some were ideal, hardly more than a matter of getting one's feet wet. Meanwhile, the gain was tremendous. The enemy never having expected us to come ashore here. There were other shores, many of them wicked. Sometimes the attack was in frail crabs, sitting ducks for the enemy if surprise had not been accomplished. Another beach, amphibious tractors. Continually the envelopment, the flank attack. Decisions, difficult ones boldly made based upon unique knowledge and experience. In addition, a mastery by MacArthur of combined operations of the three arms, the key to modern warfare. Leaders and men shared the glow of victory. Fossils on the Allied side were relatively small since damaging frontal assaults were avoided. But thousands of Japanese prepared to fight to the death were rarely given this opportunity. Although many were captured, thousands more were isolated, their supply and communication lines destroyed. In the words of the strategist who conceived and carried out the plan, the main body of the enemy was left to wither on the vine. To the outside world, to many who saw the newsreels, the progress being made by the general was admired and applauded. But to those who understood MacArthur, they saw beneath every move is determination to return to the Philippines. This to him was a moral obligation.  Invasions in the southwest Pacific continued. To the commander, these hard-bought steps zigzagging along the coast of New Guinea were preliminaries, necessary ones. Finally, having gained the northwestern end of the island with thousands of the enemy bypassed, there was no question in his mind as to the next objective. But the president, the commander-in-chief, was not so sure. In a meeting at Hawaii in 1944, where do we go from here, Douglas? Shall it be Formosa or the Philippines? In the discussion with Admiral Nimitz and the president, there were many urgent military reasons for the choice presented. And one less tangible reason for going into the Philippines presented by MacArthur. On moral grounds, we had to return to support the Filipinos, our allies and friends. The decision was made. Lady Gulp, 41 years before as a newly commissioned engineer, Lieutenant MacArthur had made a survey of this area, its potentiality and needs in case of war. Now, two miles off the starboard was Lady again. Music Once more, the enemy had not been ready for an attack. The commander watched with growing gratification. With the help of guerrilla intelligence and sabotage, Americans held the beachhead, encircling and surprising the enemy. Now on the beaches of Lady, a seemingly limitless supply of LSTs, men and equipment. The result of carefully laid plans. Directing the attack, the general seemed to be everywhere at once. Every day, at some point in the front lines, his men would spot the familiar faded field marshals camp and the outsized corn cob pipe. The landings at Lady and Lingay and Gulp finally brought troops on the final difficult leg of the journey. The road to Manila, where the going became more difficult, as the enemy threw in huge numbers of reinforcements in an all-out effort to halt the steady advance. There was no timetable now in MacArthur's mind. Only that he must get to Manila without delay to rescue prisoners from the reported increasing savagery of the Japanese guards. In Manila, the fighting was block by block. Troops found what the leader had told them to expect. The enemy had dug in for a long siege. To the general, this was the return. This was the climax of the mission to which he was so deeply dedicated. And now, Corregidor. The stronghold, which early in the war had been so effective a fortress for withstanding attack, was now his. Play while civilians celebrated joyfully at one end of the city and the enemy still fought bitterly at the other, MacArthur entered Manila. He had kept the soldier's faith. Probably his greatest reward was the visit to prison camps. Sato Tomas, believe it, Cabana Tuan, Los Barrios, a series of daring surprise raids that rescued every prisoner held by the Japanese. And a little late, he said, but we finally came. Once more, Corregidor and the Philippines were under an American flag. Then, suddenly and swiftly, the war against Japan was brought to a close. As the principal architect of the Pacific Victory, credited by the Chief of Britain's wartime imperial general staff as the greatest general of the war, MacArthur was the natural choice as supreme commander to enforce the surrender terms. Aboard the battleship Missouri, an awesome ceremony was to take place. One which reflected the deep awareness of a great soldier, his understanding of war and peace, and the historic moment that this was. It is my earnest hope, and indeed the hope of all mankind, that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past. A world founded upon faith and understanding. A world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish for freedom, tolerance and justice. Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always. These proceedings are closed. Now began one of the strangest occupations of any land by any conqueror. An idealist with firm convictions on the way democracy can be presented to Eastern peoples. MacArthur determined to guide the Japanese through a complete social revolution. While the emperor with his deep hold upon the people was retained, almost every other institution became affected by what was entirely new to the Japanese, western democracy. The ideas caught on under the sure leadership of MacArthur. There was the enactment of a constitution and universal suffrage. The national diet, highest organ of state power, became responsible to the people. Monopolies were broken up. Land reform was instituted which transformed tenants into owners. These rural capitalists became a strong bulwark against communism. In Japan, the social reforms urged by MacArthur proved one of the most successful experiments in history. An immovable enemy became a friend. During the occupation, the people took him to their hearts and his family as well. His wife, she who had been beside her husband at Corregidor, and their young son, Parker. The work of reform was going ahead when suddenly a huge military force swept down from North Korea across the 38th parallel. Handfuls of Americans serving as occupation troops in Japan were blown into South Korea in a rapid show of strength, aimed at showing greater resources than actually were at hand. The strategy worked. The North Koreans ran into resistance, bogged down waiting for more troops and artillery, while reinforcements poured into South Korea to turn the tide of battle. During the ensuing months, General MacArthur guided the war as commander-in-chief of United Nations forces in Korea. Again, he studied the fighting at close range. A man in his 70s visiting battlefields as dauntlessly as he had many years before, when a young officer in France. Then came the daring amphibious attack at Incheon. Behind the enemy's lines, on a shore that others had declared too risky. The landing was a complete surprise and success. The North Korean army was demoralized. The victory has become recognized as a masterpiece of strategy. Seoul returned to its rightful inhabitants. There had been a long line of cities and towns returned under MacArthur's leadership. It was at this time that President Truman cited MacArthur for his vision, his judgment, his indomitable will, his unshakable faith. The Korean War continued northward. The orders were the destruction of the North Korean armed forces. And then the Chinese Communist entered the conflict, closing new questions in Washington, not only military but political. While carrying out what he considered to be his duty as supreme commander, the pursuit of victory on the battlefield, General MacArthur came into conflict with those he served. His long undistinguished military career was suddenly brought to a close in an official order from the President, Commander-in-Chief of the Military Forces of the United States. He was homeward bound for the first time in 14 years. The San Francisco reception was the largest, the most paciferous, this city had ever known. The hero was home from the wars of last and deserving the deepest respect and gratitude of the people he had served. In the midst of the ovation, the husband graciously acknowledged that he had not stood alone. This is not only my beloved wife, but my best colder. In the nation's capital, greater than all the medals and honors of his career, was this final tremendous tribute. And then General MacArthur stepped down from the great panorama of history in which he had figured so brilliantly, with a soldier's words spoken from a soldier's heart. The world has turned over many times. Since I took the oath on the plane at West Point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished. But I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barrack ballads of that day, which proclaimed most proudly all soldiers never die. They just and like the old soldier of that valley, I now close my military career and just fade away. An old soldier pride to do his duty, as God gave him the light to see that duty. Goodbye.


I'll go box clips. We will be hiring some additional staff during the summer. So if you are interested in tech support role, we will have some tech spots open and fun stuff like that here during the summer. We'll be editing the website. Speaking of website, again, we are looking to hire a web developer. So if that's you, and we're actually probably possibly looking at a couple web developers, I've got a couple of projects. I've got scammers.io ready to go. We've already got some of the logo stuff done for it and all that. We're going to be exposing scammers. So if you'd like to work on our scammers.io website, if that sounds like something you would like to do, come on down. We are going to get you hooked up. And well, you guys are going to hook us up, actually, because I am looking to hire a dev for the scammers.io website. So if you'd like to be interviewed for that, hit me up and we'll talk.


And you're here with us today to hear from three amazing community advocates about energy justice in Hawaii. The title of this show today is energy justice taking root or takes root or something along those lines justice takes root. We added an extra s in there. And we're we're going to be hearing from Todd Yamashita who is the president of whole who energy cooperative Molokai he's a fourth generation Molokai resident and a father of two. We'll also be hearing from Dr. Tavita Kaili, originally from Nuku Alofa, with ancestral ties to Tonga Samoa Fiji and Rotuma, and is currently dean and professor of cultural anthropology language and performing arts at Brigham Young University and a longtime resident of Kahuku and community advocate, as well as Auntie Kapua Kiliikua Kamai, who is a community leader, and in why and I and advisor to the White and I Valley Homestead Association Board. So I'm going to pass it over to them to do a quick intro, and then we'll dive into sort of a casual talk story. If anybody is listening live right now and has a question please drop that in to the chat or the website, and we will be sure to share it with our awesome panelists. So Todd first give us a little background what brings you to the energy justice conversation. Sure, so it was definitely my family my father was president of Molokai Electric back in the day. And so, you know I was brought up with this idea of hometown energy. You know, something that was owned by the community, something that served the community, and employed a lot of people and, you know, I remember back on my grandfather and the people who knew him and, you know, for him it was he wasn't a community man. He was known as a community man. And we have a whole different thing. We have a whole different thing today you know it's, we have the HCI who owns the utility here on Molokai and it's vastly it's it doesn't quite work that way anymore. And you mentioned my two children and I see a future for them. That's a lot like that of my grandfather's and I hope that in all of the work that that we can do here on Molokai and elsewhere. It can be in the spirit of community building. So that's that's what brings me here today. Thank you for the space. Thank you for joining us Todd. Auntie Kapua, can you share a little bit about your background and what brings you to the energy justice conversation. Long time resident of one night Valley Homestead, more of a community advocate than a community leader. Those things that I think are good for our community. I'll advocate for those that I think is not so good. I'm definitely going to make my position know and actually find others that have like minds to see what we can do about it because there's too much things that people want to put into why and I that they don't want in their own backyard. And so why and I definitely needs justice, not only on the side of environment, but also in social welfare economic. So there's many areas that why and I needs to be uplifted. Also been resident of wine I Valley Homestead. Let's see, for the last almost 30 years. I have two beautiful daughters, myself. I've grown no grandchildren yet but looking forward to leaving them a better place to live for our more as well. Wow. I love those generational parallels between you and Todd. Tavita, can you run this out with your intro and what brings you to the energy justice conversation. Thank you for the question and for the invitation to participate in this panel and grateful to be here with Todd and Kapua. At this from a cultural justice point of view as of my training is cultural anthropology so I'm an advocate for cultural preservation revitalization and so forth. And, you know, I have also background in social work so a lot of the work that I've been working on has been on social justice. And over the years, the two seem to intersect where energy justice and social justice came together. And I started to advocate for, you know, when I saw that sometimes the energy industry was also destroying some of the cultures, the beautiful culture here in Hawaii but also in other places. So I feel there's an obligation and a responsibility and a kuleana to advocate for making sure that cultural site, cultural practices are preserved and conserved in those particular areas. And especially with indigenous people and their rights to their land and so forth. You know, as a person from Tonga who have come here to Hawaii, I've spent many years advocating for Hawaiian issues. So, you know, the energy justice area that I have been focusing and working on it is that is that particular advocacy to make sure that the voices of indigenous people are, are valued and that they are heard, and so forth. And, you know, I teach courses as a professor that also advocate for these particular area. And, and I live in Kahuku, where we have 20 turbines, we carry 40% of the wind energy of Oahu. And so my professional life and my personal life sort of all intersect in where I live and perhaps live maybe a little bit later I will talk about some of the advocacy work that we have done here to to get our voices heard. But that's the, that's my, my specific area it's advocating for indigenous people and their culture. So, thank you. Hello to Vita. I'm amazing to hear that background. And I think what you said about making sure that local voices that indigenous voices are heard in energy is a big part of energy justice and I hope that that's something that we can chat about today I think that shows up in a bunch of different parts of our landscape both projects that that do not listen to local values or do not match local values and then on the other end of the spectrum are projects that are are built up purely by local voices and built from the ground up community and I love this the spectrum of voices that the three of you are bringing to the conversation, each kind of participating in different parts of that whether you're partially down the road for a community led community owned energy which would be Todd, or starting the conversation around community led energy which hoping Auntie Kapua can tell us a little bit about and then to Vita with hearing about the winter vines in Kahuku and what it looks like to be thinking about a fresh project that did not match community is in shifting over so Todd can you tell us a little bit about start start us with the story of more history of extractive project proposals and how that grew into a whole often. Thank you. You know it's interesting because I guess our Genesis story starts off similar to to Vitas and Kahuku's more than a decade ago now they had somebody had this really great idea to build more than 50 of the world's largest windmills it was proposed that they would build these here on Molokai and that they would transport the energy with a undersea cable over to a Wahoo and you know you can imagine how that was received here on Molokai, but you know the conversation was important because this is more than just don't build this in my backyard. You know this is a concept of oh my gosh, you know this this appetite for energy. If it is so voracious that you have to go beyond your boundaries, you know outside of your Wahoo and into your neighbors backyard, not even to ask but to say this is what we need and we're going to take it. You know obviously for us in the values that we try to live by a Molokai, you know that struck us the wrong way and so it created this it created a movement. And through that movement over the years we've slowly educated ourselves about our energy environment and what's at play here. And if you think about, you know we have the highest electricity rates here on Molokai and, and we use some of the least amount of electricity for anybody. So if you think about that and if you think about $2 million bonuses from the utility CEO, if you think about the fact that this is a publicly traded company, you know it's a hard it's a hard truth to swallow. You know the fact that this basic necessity is, is, is kind of being profited off the backs of our owner. And so that's that's where the passion comes from. And it's more than just that. You know, for us, survival is everything and so we don't have the same kind of economy as other places and so when your utility bill is a huge portion of your income. You know, it's everything you can do just to make it to the next month. And so this is more than, you know, just fixing, you know, something that's broken it, it's, it's, it's trying to build equity on behalf of our community. And so fast forward, you know, we, we've, we've heard of these new energy projects that are coming out and that's called community solar or community based renewable energy and you know so basically the utility said hey there's a project that can benefit your community and and you can choose potentially for it to benefit whoever you want, low to moderate income or Hawaiian homesteaders here, which, which make up a good portion of our island. And so that, that set us into action, you know, this group of people that have been meeting over the years. And just this year, we unified and created a cooperative. And it's a consumer cooperative and we created a consumer cooperative because we believe that, you know, if, if, if we are taking control of our energy destiny and we're using something like the sun that shines on all of us. It is not right to profit off of that. That's something that, you know, we need to take to empower other people. And so that's, that's precisely what we've done and in the spirit of, of bringing equity to our community. We hope to succeed. Amazing. It's just an amazing transition to be witness to Auntie Kapua. Can you tell us a little bit about where you and some of your neighbors and like minded community members are thinking about and just starting that conversation what has that been like so far. So what are you finding powerful about that conversation about thinking about community led energy. What, what led you guys here and yeah, I'll stop there. That's a lot of questions. Okay, so I was just saying about how I totally agree with Todd, you know about capacity and overwhelming, and then having to depend upon the next, the next guy for it. In this case, it's when Oahu had wanted to cable out to La Nati for energy.  That just means that Oahu has too many people, or else we need to take care of our own needs. And if we can't take care of our own needs we're exceeding our capability our capacity. You know, to that extent, I think each community, each, each island needs to take care of yourself and not depend upon the other guy. And I heard what you said, Todd, you know about helping the next guy. That's true. But when Oahu is looking to overwhelm another area, another island to meet its needs, that means that Oahu needs to look inside, look at ourselves. And so that's where Waianae, you know, we're very grateful to get in contact with a group of energy conscientious folks that far exceeds the three of us that you see here. Oh, I'm sorry for including you, Allie, the four of us, but from conversations like that, and learning about community based renewable energy, and how that is something that could be done in Waianae, because Waianae has, I think to this day we still have the largest solar farm out here helping everyone. But it doesn't benefit our community to help everyone as much as we'd like to. We'd like everyone to help yourselves. You know, you need the energy to put it up in your area. You need to take care of your trash, take care of it in your area. You know, so it's a community that takes care of your community, not putting it all in one area, because it's at the end of the road. It's where you have your native peoples and part of your lowest income, or wherever we may be, because this also pertains to Kahu'u area as well. You know, trying to put all of our needs on the next community, whether it be energy or Opala, you know, so it's community taking care of itself. And so we're fortunate to be in discussions with other folks and bringing it to our board and our community. So we just started this discussion about having our own community solar farm that can benefit our community, as well as others on this island. We're just glad for sky's the limit. You know, it's just a matter of the capacity that we have in our community to take care of ourselves. Mahalo. I think I'm just as you mentioned, I'm going to transition over. I think that the echoing there of projects being placed and burdening other communities disproportionately to Vita. Can you tell us a little bit about how your advocacy in Kahu'u and thinking about this wind farm project and how it doesn't match community values, how are you, where are you guys at in that advocacy and how are you thinking about what community energy could look like? Yeah. You know, originally we had 12 wind turbines, they're about 400 feet, 400 plus feet. The new ones that we have are 560 plus.  We know the energy as far as we know do not go to our local community but are taken extracted from our community and taken to Honolulu to power many of the hotels and so forth. So, you know, from from the beginning, we've always asked the question, how does this benefit our community? We are completely surrounded by these massive, we call them the monster turbines. Because they're not only massive but their footprint as far as clearing so much of our Aina in order to build one of these.  So, you know, the Ho Pepe, the Hawaiian Ho Rebats and then many of the other native Hawaiian culturally significant. This is where I came in because these were culturally significant. The Ho Pepe is culturally significant because it shows up in the Hawaiian kumulipo and Hawaiian creation story and many of the other birds, which to me, this was a form of, you know, a form of ethno site, a killing of the culture through the industrial turbines. So many of our advocacy was to say, hey, we don't want this. You know, we've already have 12. We think we've carried our, you know, the number for, you know, for Hawaii, you know, perhaps it should be in another community. But many of us were also saying that, you know, the turbines just didn't fit here. You know, we were all for renewable energy rooftop solar. We refer that because we think that's wonderful. It doesn't take up some of our land, our ag lands or any of our other land and so forth. And, you know, one of the things that we really wanted to do was to get consent. You know, oftentimes the conversation is about consultation. We have consulted with these community and to us, it feel like it was just going through the motion or say, yo, we came and talked to you and told you this, but there was no option for us to say yes or no. It was like, should we make the turbine this tall or make it short? Should we move it a few more feet? So that was the conversation. It wasn't like, no, we do not want. And so, before for us, that was part of our concern that we've never been given a consultation. So, so now where we're at now is that we're just fighting, you know, these corporations. The latest one is AES, Big Energy Corporation that is, you know, multinational. And we are basically saying, you know, there's got to be a better way to do this, where our local communities are involved in this decision and also, you know, have a saying of what to do with this energy. Here in Kahuku, we have really good wind and we also have really good sun. So we're sort of kind of blessed both of them. It's almost also a kind of a curse for us because other corporation outside wants to extract this to use for other things. And I just want to say we're not against renewable energy, green renewable energy. And therefore, we believe in climate change. We just want to do it in a way that it's responsible and porno take into account the, you know, most of indigenous local communities in the process of creating these, you know, these energy project. We've started having some conversations similar to what they're doing in Molokai, but we're kind of looking at Todd and their work there is sort of kind of the model for us as we move forward in this process. That's amazing to meet. Hello for sharing and I just also want to acknowledge all three of you the level of effort, time, energy, passion that goes into all forms of advocacy whether advocating against projects that don't fit local culture that don't respect local values and then building up projects that do like equally so taxing on on time and energy so thank you so much for the work you do. Todd, I want to, I want to ask you to reflect on hearing Tavita and Auntie Kapua share a little bit about how they where they are in the process and maybe who are who being a little farther down that line. What are some reflections on some of the obstacles that you guys have gone through forming a co-op what are some of the resources that were helpful in getting over some of those obstacles. Sure, thank you. You know, I think Molokai is a little bit different so our obstacles have been a little bit different and some of our challenges differently different as well. You know, before I go forward, I want to acknowledge that Molokai is very different and special because of the very, very hard work that our kupuna did before us. They really helped keep this place intact and we're lucky that we're a community is close enough to be relatively united. And there are also many, many people not in this room that are actively at my at all of our sides working together to make all of this go and I just want to really acknowledge them in the thousands of hours that have got us to where we are. But to answer your question, you know, we know what it's like not to have the bandwidth. We know what it's like to have to where all it's all you can do just to push back against something that is not right for your community. And Molokai has really been lucky. In the past decade it's been relatively controversy free here and, you know, instead of just kind of taking a breath we've really used that time and filled that time with being proactive. And it has not been easy for us to get to this point where we are it's taken a lot of hard work and what we've done is we've surrounded ourselves with any energy professionals, pro bono lawyers, leaders who have come out of the woodwork to root for the underdog, and we're not. We're not going to be selfish about this amazing support that we got. I'm here today to pledge to everyone here that everything that it is that we are doing is available to every other community out there and and in fact you know I know. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We've been meeting here and there. There is a movement. Energy justice movement that is going statewide is talking about these really hard things that we're talking about trying, trying to figure out for ourselves. To do whatever it is that we can to contribute to that movement in any capacity. Thank you. Todd, we have just a couple minutes left today together. Can I ask you for what are some of your takeaways and maybe even asks, as Todd just said, we've got a lot of resources out there. Is there anything that we on the call or the audience could help support the community and in pursuing their advocacy.  Native Hawaiians community came in in full force to support us doing our stands. You know, I was arrested along with 200 others. During the whole one month that we were protesting or protecting, I'd like and we know we refer to ourselves as Kiai, you know, really inspired by Mauna Kea as protectors of culture and Aina and so forth. So, you know, one of the things that we've always, so we're grateful for all that supported and, you know, we'd like to just ask people to continue to support us in our, most of our fight now is in the court and we're in, you know, several different court fights that we are involved in trying to to right the wrong that, you know, or the injustices have been to us. But moving forward, we are also sort of just trying to consent to some, you know, thinking about, you know, how do we work as far as making this more community-led, community-based, and so forth. So I'm, you know, I'm grateful for the partnerships that and the meetings that we have, you know, I met meeting with Hohahu and others in this and if other community members out there are doing similar things, you know, help us. Mahalo, Tavita. Amazing. Ask. On to Kapua. We've got, I think we only have 30 seconds left. Do you have any takeaways or next steps you want to share and you're on mute just to put a warning. Okay. Um, yeah, I just want to thank the energy fully that again is more than us that allowed us to come into this discussion and to even realize that there are opportunities for our community to actually benefit from the energy that we can create. And I encourage other communities to consider that likewise, and we welcome everyone's assistance. Mahalo. Mahalo, on to Kapua. Mahalo, Todd and Tavita. I think we're right about at time where that's what they're telling me anyways. Um, this was an awesome kickoff to what will be a bi weekly, once every two weeks, community conversation around energy justice so we'll have more folks from our Hui come join us and and we'll tackle new topics. Anybody listening has any specific questions they want to ask, send us an email, but you'll you'll see us in two weeks. Energy justice in Hawaii. Thanks guys.