SmartTranscript of House Commerce - 2025-05-02 - 1:00PM

[Edythe Granning]: Good afternoon everyone. This is [Michael Marcotte]: the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It is Friday, May second, twenty twenty five at one zero four in the afternoon. So we're back to continue our discussions on s one twenty two. So we have with us from joint fiscal office, Patrick Titterton, who's going to kinda walk us through this will note, kinda explains what's on spreadsheets and what's not there and what we're seeing and better understand what is in one twenty two and what is in space budget, things like that. So, Patrick, if you'd like to join us, thank you for coming in this afternoon. [Patrick Titterton]: Absolutely. So, Patrick, did it turn to join fiscal office? I haven't seen you all since January. Yeah. So, yeah, I what do you do you all have the fiscal note in front of you? Do you want me to work off that? [Michael Marcotte]: Yeah. I think it's posted to affects our web page. [Speaker 3 ]: So [Patrick Titterton]: one thing that might be a little confusing is there isn't actually any money in this bill that you have. There's that section, I think, ten or something like ten a that takes every single one of the appropriations including, it's not an appropriation, but including the, the increase in the downtown and village tax credit program, the increase in the cap there, makes it all contingent about, you know, money being available and the decisions that the appropriators make. So one thing that we can do is I think I will just talk through what is or isn't in the budget because that's really where all the money is living. So if you want to maybe follow along in the appendix, that table I have in the back there, I can just go sort of line by line, tell you what was in the GovRec, what was what you all had, what this bill in front of you sort of aspirationally said they wanted to happen, and then what the senate actually included. K. So that first line item for Department of Economic Development for the Vermont Law and Graduate School, there's three hundred thousand appropriated or sort of contingently appropriated in this bill. The senate budget, which has come to the house, does not include this money, and that money was also not included in the government's recommended language. So that is sort of not funded anywhere right now. The next one, the Vermont Professionals of Color Network. In the bill, they wanted three hundred and fifty thousand. What actually got included in the senate budget is two hundred thousand. The gov rec was two hundred and fifty thousand. So a little bit lower than so the the senate budget is lower than both the GovRec and what was included in the bill you have in front of you. And what what was in house house budget for professional color? I believe that I believe that has so for the most part, the house followed the GovRec on pretty much all of these pieces. Got it. So we kinda can consider the auto there might be one or two that was slightly different, but for the most part, the for these particular programs anyway, the house matched matched up with pickup rec. And so those two are both one time. The next one so that section two c for this Vermont Small Business Development Center, this is a base appropriation. So this bill wanted to increase their base by three hundred thousand. K. What the senate decided to do was keep it level funded, which was in or sorry. Maintain what the gov rec had asked for. And so you won't see it on some of those summary sheets because they only show differences that have changed along the way. So that that that also means that it was the same in the house budget as well. So the house so budget that the house and the governor is recommending [Michael Marcotte]: was three eighty eight eight eighty nine. [Patrick Titterton]: Okay. And why the number is so specific, I don't know. Two d was for the Vermont sustainability sustainable jobs fund. That was for a business resource guide that Senate economic development had taken some testimony on. It's not something that was included in the governor's budget, in the House's budget, and the Senate appropriators ended up not including that in their budget as well. And that's that was one touch. The next two pieces, what showed up from the governor's recommend and in the senate budget are the same as each other, but this bill in front of you had been a little different. So for the micro business support, the bill called for five hundred and eighty one. I think maybe the they had asked for sort of an inflationary adjustment to their base. But what the senate decided to do is just maintain what the GovRec had called for. And what does that fit? That was the the four hundred and ninety three thousand three hundred and thirty nine dollars. K. And then coaching services, what's in the bill is the same as what's in the house is the same as what's the senate included. It's the same across all, you know, interested parties. That's a hundred and twenty thousand for the coaching services. So that's not a change from the bill or the senate or the house's position. So that's in there? That's in there. So we don't need that. [Michael Marcotte]: Did do they need languages? Or [Patrick Titterton]: For the coaching services? I'm not sure about that. I don't think there was a distinct change in their scope of work, but I would refer to Rick. He knows. Rick Siegel also works in council. You know, if you want the money [Rick Siegel]: to go into that, I would keep the language. You could just appropriate the money in the budget. You know what the language is in the budget? [Patrick Titterton]: It's just a straight appropriation. I think it's just a straight dollar figure, but I can check on that. Yeah. [Edythe Granning]: You know, I would [Rick Siegel]: consider keeping the language if that's what you want the money to be used for. [Patrick Titterton]: I mean, it can also be a bit of, like, a belts and suspenders exercise to keep the language saying what the money should be used for. Good. While at the same time, you know, it's your if you wanna change some of the contingent language, just mash up with what's, you know, in the budget, Also an option for you. So that brings us to the Vermont Arts Council, that section is three a and three b. The first piece, it you'll see, like, a a million dollar dollar figure here. The real the real change there is, like, a little less than seventy thousand. It's just to bump it up to maintain the maximum federal matching ability for this program. And so it's it is above the governor's recommend, but I think what was happening at the time was they just hadn't gotten the rules to know what the amount exact amount would be. So it is a little higher, but Is there actually gonna be any money? That's an excellent question. I've been going around to several committees, giving testimony on headwinds facing Vermont revenues. And, obviously, there's the federal funding, picture to consider. What happens to this if there is no is is [Michael Marcotte]: the money contingent on federal funding that we that we're giving to the ARDS Council? [Patrick Titterton]: I don't know if there's that language in the budget, but I could certainly check on that for you. I don't know if that's something that's typically done or not. Although the the the language as it's written does specify that it's for the federal matching. So I I Yeah. I wonder what happens [Michael Marcotte]: to the funds if Right. If the net doesn't fund the arts anymore. [Patrick Titterton]: Yeah. Just check and see if there's, like, some lingo legal, like, triggering language. [Mary Kate Mollman]: Even, I think, want them to get the money either way because it's half of their Well [Emily Carris-Duncan]: funding. They would be Yeah. [Speaker 3 ]: But not able [Emily Carris-Duncan]: to do their work at all. [Michael Marcotte]: Yeah. That's why I'm I'm wondering if Yeah. If the language would would stop them from receiving the money with the state funds. Sure. Yeah. I can check on that. Sure. So remind me, so contingent [Edythe Granning]: appropriations, the numbers, they represent hierarchy. In other words, you got money here, but you don't have money down here. Is it does it go in the flow of the the section numbers here, or is it go in some other way? I mean, if you have maybe half the money. [Patrick Titterton]: That's it. So is the question, like, is the bill structured in, like, numerical order of priority? Right. If it's contingent. Right? So so it's a little different than, like, the what you hear about with the contingent list for the budget oftentimes. So, that'll often be, you know, with whatever surplus revenue that comes through, they'll be able to match up all of the different policy committees, proposals, and sort of priorities with what the bucket of money that's sitting available looks like. So, like, in conference, when the budget's conference, they'll sort of really hammer out the details of what the contingent list looks like, including some of the hierarchy and sort of priority. But sort sort of this bill in front of you, it doesn't necessarily reflect what's gonna be the construct for the contiguous for the budget, if that makes sense. [Edythe Granning]: So these numbers don't right. Looks like the hierarchy, that'll be determined later? [Patrick Titterton]: Not explicitly. Maybe unofficially, they could, but not not explicitly. No. And, you know, I think one thing you can also look at is when thinking about so the policy committee in the senate said that we want this level of funding, and the appropriators said this is what we can afford, basically. Maybe to give you a little bit of a the sense of that. I'll figure that. Okay. Well, I hope I'm not making it more confusing. No. No. No. No. [Michael Marcotte]: No. I I no. [Patrick Titterton]: So there was an appropriation also for a film and creative industry initiative. I think it included some, like, database compiling [Michael Marcotte]: to know sort of who in [Patrick Titterton]: the state works in this industry. Was not included in the GovRec, and the senate budget does not fund this, but the bill had called for a hundred and twenty thousand for that initiative. [Michael Marcotte]: Can you fund it either? No. [Patrick Titterton]: Department of Forex Parks and Rec, There's an outdoor business program that, again, was not in the GovRec. The house did not include the committee in the senate said that they wanted to put the two hundred and fifty thousand dollars towards it, but in the final budget senate budget construct, they did not include that. And then the last piece is the the Internet National Trade Division. GovRec called for three fifty. I think there was some discussion of they don't necessarily need all that money right away, so the senate brought that down to a hundred and fifty thousand for the coming fiscal [Michael Marcotte]: year. I'll double check the house situation. House is. [Patrick Titterton]: Yeah. That's right. So but that's all the appropriation to the bill. The other piece was the the downtown bill's tax credits. I don't believe there's capacity sort of budgeted in the senate version of the budget. The house also did not incorporate capacity for that in the budget that they passed. Couple one other small piece is there's, this Vermont Irish Trade Commission, which does have per diem eligible individuals on it, and included in the budget is in the senate budget is, like, fifteen thousand for that right now. I know they did before they tweak the number, they changed the composition of the committee the commission a little bit. So that will be something that changes, you know, by a few thousand dollars, relatively small in the grand scope of things. But those were the only other monetary pieces. At one point, the convention center task force had redeem eligible individuals on it that sort of got moved into a ACCD study, so there's not a fiscal impact associated with that study anymore. [Michael Marcotte]: A house member in the senate. Right? [Patrick Titterton]: Well, now it's just a ACCD. So, again, there's so there's two. Right? There's the Yep. Independent center, more study. That is a task force. [Michael Marcotte]: The Mhmm. [Patrick Titterton]: Access to capital study from ACCD. So the task force does have six or seven people. It's the last it's a session. Well, I must be talking about a change they contemplated them. But, yeah, the the estimate for that task force was about four to six thousand dollars. So And it stripped out the per diem anyway. Yeah. They stripped out the per diems anyway. But but they didn't then go fund the per diems. [Michael Marcotte]: Yeah. But the isn't there language that that you have a house or senate house and senate member that they get a per diem? [Patrick Titterton]: Yeah. And and there's also the legislative budget, which Scott works a little bit of. But yeah. So that that works on house and senate members. It's not didn't right. It's out of the legislative budget. Okay. That's everything that has fiscal implications. Like I said, technically, the bill in its current form doesn't really have fiscal implications because everything has sort of been labeled as contingent. So and what does often happen, this is not always the route that these bills take. Oftentimes, what appropriations committees will do is just strip out the appropriating language altogether and work that language directly into the budget. But in this case, they opted to do this construct, which keeps the language so alive in the bill, but sort of has that tie back to the budget where the actual spending decisions end up getting made there. But to Rick's point, the language does have sort of what we want the money to be used for language in it. So, you know, there is still sort of a purpose for the for the language. [Mary Kate Mollman]: Just wanna add, if I remember the testimony correctly on the micro business, I thought it was adding another staff person. I think it was adding more staff to that, not [Emily Carris-Duncan]: not a not a cost of living. Pretty pretty sure. [Michael Marcotte]: Any other questions for Patrick? Great. Patrick, thank you. It's helpful. [Patrick Titterton]: You want me to hang up for a little longer? I think we're okay for [Michael Marcotte]: today. If we're gonna continue this discussion, I think, on Wednesday. Yep. So we may ask you to that can you or come back to us and as we move along. Maybe there's a little more information we have from [Patrick Titterton]: I think conferences maybe starting today, isn't it? I think soon. Today and Monday. Okay. K. Thank you. [Michael Marcotte]: Okay. [Patrick Titterton]: Good afternoon. [Emily Carris-Duncan]: Good afternoon, Emily. [Michael Marcotte]: For joining us. [Mary Kate Mollman]: Thank you for having me. [Speaker 3 ]: I don't think this is the first time I have ever tested blood in this room, so honored. For the record, Mary Kate Mollman. I'm the director for Vermont Public Policy with Biostate Primary Care Association. Again, since I'm new to this committee, Biostate Primary Care Association supports our state's federally qualified health centers. This includes some of our health partners in northern counties, community health centers up in Chittenden County, Bentonville Valley, down in Bennington, really across the state. But I am here and I wanna appreciate the opportunity to discuss our funding request for the Maple Mountain Family Medicine Residency Program. This program was listed as one of the healthcare committee's priorities. But it is a program that is supported through the federal teaching health center program, and it has enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress. And our ask was is really to help fill the gap between the support this program receives through the feds and the true cost of running this program for the first four years. So why do we need this program? We have residency at UVM Medical School and the Health Network. Why do we need another one? Well, Vermont has an access to care problem and a health care affordability problem. Maple Mountain Family Medicine residency would address both of these. On the issue of access, our state needs more primary care providers full stop, especially those, practicing in rural areas. In fact, they're recruiting for island pond. So if you know of anyone who wants to practice in island pond, I know someone who's hiring. And and it takes months to get an appointment with your primary care provider. That's even if you have a primary care provider, and the situation is going to get worse. That primary care workforce is shrinking. And it's also they're aging. Forty five percent of our primary care providers are over sixty. We have situations where the primary care provider over eighty is holding on to his position because he can't find anyone to fill his place. On the issue of cost, primary care is the highest value, lowest cost care in our health care system. Numerous studies, including those from the National Academy of Medicine, have demonstrated that access to primary care is associated with lower overall costs to care and improved health outcomes. So I think things we all agree are good. So again, why the teaching health center model? Well, data shows us that physicians stay in practice where they train. The Maple Mountain Teaching Health Center prepare family physicians to practice primary care in Vermont's rural settings. The settings have unique challenges. We have transportation challenges, access to food, proximity to specialists. It takes understanding how to work in that system to really practice and be successful in that setting, and that's what this program would help train them for. There's also unique, opportunities working in a small community. You've got the tight knit close community. I grew up in Cowls, Vermont, where everyone knew each other. There's also an opportunity for leadership within the community, something that a lot of our, docs like to take advantage of and relish that part of being part of the community. And so these are things that the Maple Mountain Medicine Residency would prepare these residents for. So the specifics of the request, again, the program has already received federal grant funding, but that only covers a portion of what is needed for the first four years. So this request of five hundred and fifteen thousand for the first year, second and third year are four hundred and twelve thousand, and then the fourth year is three hundred and thirty five. So you can see it drops off. And all of these funds are matchable through Medicaid. And after four years, the program is set to be self sufficient. This would be pulling in funding through the revenue generated by the residents seeing patients. And the other thing about the residents seeing patients is they're addressing the access issue right away. So we'll start with four the first year, another four the second year, another four the third year. So total of twelve residents once the program's at its max as as it's currently orchestrated. But they're seeing patients, they're taking appointments, they're addressing both the access and then they're creating a self sufficient program. And I just want to call out that recently we found out the program has received a credit accreditation, so it's ready to go. And really, this funding is the last piece of the puzzle to secure the launch of this program and getting more primary care docs practicing in Vermont and especially our rural areas. So thank you, and I'm happy to answer questions. [Michael Marcotte]: Questions? Accredited by [Speaker 3 ]: Oh, goodness. I don't know the name of the organization, but it's it's they they accredit graduate medical education. [Michael Marcotte]: Yeah. Okay. [Joseph]: So something because these are UVM medical school students [Michael Marcotte]: that are [Joseph]: in the residency or just [Speaker 3 ]: They're they're they've gone through medical school. Could be all over the country, and we are recruiting them for their residency to practice in, fairly qualified health centers across the state. And they would do rotations in some of our local, hospitals because they need to have pediatric hospital rotations. And I will mention that the organization, healthcare organization, that would be kind of the backbone organization for this program is organization for this program is Gifford Healthcare, so which has the hospital and FQHC. [Michael Marcotte]: Perfect, Pauline. [Emily Carris-Duncan]: Yes. [Edythe Granning]: I think that absolutely what you said, primary care is most cost effective, valuable thing, that you can drive from. And I've noticed in talking to primary care providers that they were older. And it is they you know, you could talk about all sorts of pay health care reform and all that stuff, but you still need to buy. [Mary Kate Mollman]: Yes. You do. [Edythe Granning]: And there's a structure. I won't say it's the UVM residency program only funds certain certain amounts of slots. Mhmm. It seems difficult to kind of get, you know, more. Right. So it sounds like this would be in addition to what the UVM Yes. Residency program already runs. [Patrick Titterton]: Is that correct? [Speaker 3 ]: Yep. It is a completely separate program, so it doesn't fall under those caps. [Edythe Granning]: Excellent. Perfect. And you talked about Gifford being as sort of the base, I guess. Mhmm. But I would assume tell me if I'm wrong that, you know, the actual primary care docs, they'd be doing their residence through the administrative structure of Gifford, but they'd be kind of spread out. Right? [Speaker 3 ]: Yes. So the consortium that's come together for Maple Mountain consortium includes a number of other of our FQHCs, and then we also partner with UVM, partner with Copley. So it's really a network to try to get our providers getting the rotations they need while also focusing on family medicine across the rural areas of our state. [Edythe Granning]: You know, list of FQHCs or is it all the FQHCs? [Speaker 3 ]: It's not all of them. Some of our smaller ones like Battenfeld, it's a little little tough to take on at this point, but I can get you that that list. We have some handouts. [Patrick Titterton]: That would [Michael Marcotte]: be great. I [Edythe Granning]: just wanna see [Michael Marcotte]: if the one near me is [Speaker 3 ]: Is not. I can't say off the top of my head. But [Patrick Titterton]: Appreciate it very much. Abby? [Emily Carris-Duncan]: Do you know how many how many primary care residents there are in the state through other programs? [Speaker 3 ]: I don't know off the top of my head what UBM has. This would be an additional twelve once it was at capacity. [Michael Marcotte]: Got it. Great. [Rick Siegel]: I just have a couple of things. [Mary Kate Mollman]: Can you run through the four year numbers for me? And then I have [Speaker 3 ]: Yes. So the first year would be five fifteen five hundred and fifteen thousand, and then you'd match it to Medicaid. So scale it up to about a little more than a million would be the total amount. The second and third year are four hundred and twelve thousand, and the third year is three hundred and eighty five thousand. And then imagine that it's self funding after that. How does that work? Because the residents are seeing, seeing patients and generating revenue from those visits. So if you're in an FQHC, you get, you know, if you're seeing a Medicaid enrollee, you get paid that Medicaid encounter rate, that is funding that then can go and help support the residents to continue practicing their training. And then there's also the funding that is from the through the teaching health center program, which is well, I'd say it's HRSA, but I believe HRSA is going away. So it would continue to be in the agency of healthy Americans or yeah. Whatever the new one is that they're doing in or how how our health and human services and decisions to help you. So I'm Yeah. [Mary Kate Mollman]: I'm gonna ask. I I'm I'm still not sure I understand. So member government can charge for their service Yes. In there first. So they will be generating income from the beginning? Yes. And then what happens if the fourth year that's different? That's what I'm [Speaker 3 ]: Because there's, like, some start up. There's the recruiting. There's hiring faculty. It's those general start up costs, and I I can pull up That's that's what I needed. Yeah. [Mary Kate Mollman]: This is this is all the start up and how how we're what the expectations are. Yeah. Start up [Emily Carris-Duncan]: positions. Thank you. [Michael Marcotte]: They don't have the ability to grow the program or to spur other areas of the state to do something similar or looking at other hospitals [Mary Kate Mollman]: Yes. From a [Michael Marcotte]: in the rural with other rural areas of the state to partner with with you? [Speaker 3 ]: I I don't know. I mean, I think there has been talk about rightsizing the program. I think the number that they've landed at is what they see as feasible in terms of overhead and recruiting and, and having the capacity to train. There's a number of restrictions on do you have enough, [Mary Kate Mollman]: like, training, [Speaker 3 ]: physicians on on board to make sure that you're getting the supervision and training that the residents need. So I wouldn't I don't wanna say that there this is as big as it could ever get, but I wouldn't I don't have the numbers in front of me. I know that they put a lot of thought into rightsizing it for now. [Michael Marcotte]: The length of time that they're on with residents? [Speaker 3 ]: It's a three year residency. [Michael Marcotte]: Oh, after three year, we're hoping they're moving into hospitals around the state. [Speaker 3 ]: Or federally qualified health centers, independent practices. Yeah. Yeah. [Michael Marcotte]: Yes. Well, I mean, I'm hoping that Yep. So every three years, you're recruiting new people? [Speaker 3 ]: It would be every year. So the first year, we recruit the four for the first class. And then So we [Michael Marcotte]: have a class that's ready to Yeah. [Speaker 3 ]: That's for four new residents four graduating residents. [Michael Marcotte]: Three year work. Okay. K. I'm just hoping you know, what I'm thinking is how do we how do we incent these new docs to move around the state when it's possible in and especially our rural area. [Speaker 3 ]: Mhmm. [Michael Marcotte]: And in the kingdom work, you need primary docs. [Emily Carris-Duncan]: Yep. [Michael Marcotte]: I'm sure it's the same south southern part of the state as well as central parts. And Yeah. Sure Essex County is really has a huge need. [Patrick Titterton]: So Yes. [Emily Carris-Duncan]: Is there an estimate for how many primary air docks we need in the state? [Speaker 3 ]: I would phone a friend on that. I think the Vermont Medical Society does a really good job of tracking that. [Emily Carris-Duncan]: Joseph, I'm here for the Vermont Medical Society. We actually did a brief this fall that shows that we are twenty two percent, below the national benchmark for primary care, and twelve out of fourteen of our counties are below that benchmark. So we're at about a hundred and fifteen less primary care than we need, and the projection is looking at the demand modeling that by two thousand and thirty, which is five years away, you know, like myself, We are looking at being three hundred and seventy primary care docs short. Right. Twenty five. Twenty five. I can send you that brief. [Michael Marcotte]: Go ahead. Go ahead. [Joseph]: So it seems like I would imagine that residency is certainly a net attractor of people to the Vermont. This isn't something that's the whole realm. And is so within the realm of residency is known very little about medical school and postmedical school and everything. Will we see do we expect to see any challenges in in in the FQHA areas, etcetera. They still live. We have all the same kind of issues that any sort of attraction to rural areas can provide in terms of the logistics of everything. [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. No. And I think that that is a challenge. I mean, that's that's the challenge in recruiting docs across the board anyway or even nursing staff as we've had a number of situations where they've hired the doc, and their doc is ready to show up, not find housing, and so they then lose that doctor. But I think that's I need to double check, but I wanna think I think some of the thinking that's going into the residency program is where to house these resident. That's part of the recruiting conversations. [Joseph]: Some of those conversations then unfold in the communities that host [Speaker 3 ]: Mhmm. [Joseph]: The the FQHAs, for example. [Michael Marcotte]: Yep. Yep. [Patrick Titterton]: Oh, great. Okay. That seems important. [Edythe Granning]: Okay. So in terms of you know, if this happens, you get some funding to start with. Have you I'm wondering if you've ever considered asking the UVM [Michael Marcotte]: Health Network for assistance with that. [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. We've been in contact with them. I don't I wouldn't I don't know what conversations around funding are. I know UVM Health Network has its own funding around GMEs, and that money goes to their but I don't, yeah, I don't know anything about whether they have committed any funding directly to this program. I know they're one of our partners in it. [Patrick Titterton]: Cool. I was actually [Rick Siegel]: curious because you had mentioned nurses [Speaker 3 ]: Mhmm. [Rick Siegel]: And nursing, which made me think about CTE. Are you in conversation with any of the CTE programs CTE. The career technical education, which has programs that that teach LPNs and Yes. [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. We have we've connected. We've had some of the administration and leadership come in from Vermont State Colleges and talk to our members directly about some of the nursing programs they have. Have you gone further down to, like, high school age? I [Rick Siegel]: pipeline sooner because we have LPN. [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. I'd have to check with our members direct like, our membership and leadership directly. I know that the AHECs typically kinda carry that water going to the high school education, but I didn't I won't rule out some of our members working in their communities because our members are at the FQHCs. They they are community health centers and they are very much engaged in whether it's a school based program and providing services in the school or reaching out to their communities or engaging with the local food shelf. They're they're they are very engaged in their community. So I would not be that would not surprise me. And I feel like that's the thing I've heard them say, but I not can't say it with certainty that, yes, they do. Yeah. [Rick Siegel]: And if it carries, I think, some, you know, potential for for training with with some brilliant students training alongside some of the chapters and and Yeah. Connections. [Michael Marcotte]: Good question. Thank you. [Speaker 3 ]: Alright. Thank you. [Patrick Titterton]: Do you have more to add? [Emily Carris-Duncan]: I don't have more to add. I just I said enterprise, that workforce brief and Workforce. We're fully supportive. Thank you, [Michael Marcotte]: And we have language. I'll send it to you, Rick, and then you can work with Jen, see if it's put it into language and we could possibly put into one twenty two. Joe's. Okay. Good. Yeah. Because what Joe just sent has been posted too. Okay. I think that's it for this week. We'll take the certificate in next Wednesday. Try to get those twenty where we can move it out in here. Anything one thirty seven, it's up for action. We're gonna delay it one legislative day, take testimony on it to understand what it all brings, and then finish it up Tuesday afternoon. I'm looking at we'll be up for action on Wednesday.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House Commerce - 2025-05-02 - 1:00PM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: