House Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee

Anyone here wishing to speak for or against the bill please sign up if you haven't already or Senate seats outside the door over here on the rights on my right. Without objection the bills in red will be added to the consent agenda any objections. Seeing none those bills will be added. Okay committee you know the issues that were having the internet's not working in this room either. So we're we're copying the bills and we'll try to get those to you you can get on your phone if you want to try it that way so there were the staff is running copies right now but we want to start out with the concur or amendments which you already have should have that in front of you. So the first one is concurrent Senate Amendment to H. B. twelve fifty four representative Wardlaw. Let's see here. Okay. All right. Representative Gonzalez you're recognized to do the concurrent concurrent Senate amendments to H. B. twelve fifty four famous share this this was an agreed upon amendment one that he said he was going to go amended one when this pass out of the house of I appreciate a good vote on. The questions from committee. Yes you're recognized. The public group already. Okay I may miss misspoken on that than I thought. We're. The sun was wait till he gets back okay the I'll let it speak for them so we'll skip over that do that when he gets back in the room I know he's he's around here somewhere so. All right we're going to move on to. The concurrent Senate Amendment on H. B. fifteen twenty one. And McCollum. The race representatives also amended my bill on the Senate side Sir you want to share with us. Yes so the original bill had language in there that Only allow protections of they were following CDC guidelines this kind of opened up to as long as they're practice and within their their scope of practice so basically what it does is it is it still protects the prescribers if they're prescribing medications off label. Any questions from committee. Seeing none. May close for your men. Yeah I'm I'm closed I'll make make a motion to concur in Senate Amendment. The house bill fifteen twenty one the discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. Motion carries your amendment has been passed. Okay committee went wait a few minutes on the copies. The committee Just so you know I don't know where the Speaker means while ago but we're recess until three fifteen or if he calls back in earlier we may go back. to the house but the. He will let us know the changes. Okay committee I think everybody has a copy of some of the bills so we're gonna be moving around on the agenda a little bit So the first bill that we're going to hear is H. B. sixteen seventy six. By representative McCollum. So representive you're recognized to present your bill thank you Committee good to see you all specially under the strange circumstances so appreciate all your hard work I want to. Bring up someone to present with me and that is Joe with opportunity solutions. If you would please introduce yourself and who you represent. Yeah. Good afternoon my name is Joe Horvath I'm a visiting fellow with the opportunity solutions project that's H. O. R. VAT H.. A representative we have an amendment. Twitter you should have that as well as commander in this committee it's being passed out but it's simply striking the year twenty twenty one and putting into place twenty twenty two. And I would ask for and adoption of the amendments from my any member of the committee please what's will represent a Bentley. I have a motion of do pass on the amendment. The discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. Motion carries the amendment has been adopted you're recognized to present the bill as amended. Thank you chair thank you Committee so. The inherent logic of this bill is that when jobs are plentiful that people don't need as much time to look for jobs and you know I'd I know there's been a lot of discussion on unemployment especially as we made our way through this pandemic. And a lot of conversation even back with whether or not we should exempts folks from unemployment taxes and. Whether that sent the right signal when we have employers that are out there saying well we're looking to hire but there are folks out there there may be saying well why would I go back to work when. Action employment might be the better kick in so we want to take a look at what some other states are doing with the subject of indexing and Joe Joe would. Keach takes through the background of probably some of what you've observed in other states sure absolutely so the concept from this bill comes from statutes that states pass coming out of the last Great Recession three model states in particular Florida Georgia and North Carolina their trust funds were badly drawn down during the Great Recession so they needed something that would simultaneously shore up their trust funds and help boost our economic recovery and this is where the idea came from and I can tell you Florida had tremendous success the foundation for government accountability did a case study on Florida specifically and they found that. From when they first passed in twenty eleven until twenty eighteen they reduce the amount of time claimant spent on the system and half cut costs by seventy percent and when people are spending less time on the system and costs are down that allowed taxes to go down before they passed this policy they were tied with New York state for the for their unemployment taxes that their employers pay now they are far and away the most economically competitive in that category in America they are I think pennies on the dollar compared to any state you could look at and one particular element of their recovery is this is something they put in at the ground level right we talk about the different things that a state like Florida does economically and through policy but this was one of their first thoughts in fact they renamed their unemployment system there reemployment system because they recognize that the most important part of an economic recovery is making sure people are working and able to find work. I thank you for your comments did you want to add anything representative. Not at this point I don't know if there's anyone here signed up either way so I could well awesome. Any questions from committee. A. The representative Ferguson you're recognized. Yeah yeah I guess I guess I'm trying to understand I've just from the news stories when we hit the pandemic there are huge lines in the Florida unemployment system was one of the worst in the country. So explain to may have this won't cause the same problems here if we had another pandemic or unemployment downturn I mean it you only have to see the pictures of larger than what a mess it was when you had people fighting in line to get unemployment applications sure that's an excellent question I'm glad you asked it's important to divorce the processing aspect of your unemployment claims with the actual benefits structure a lot of states No state was immune from having delays so for example Michigan was a twenty six week state their people waited entire years they ended up putting out a bill one point one billion in fraud because they were under so much pressure that they're agency said you know let's go ahead and just our processing claims before we even start to police them so I don't see that this that this process is necessary necessarily collected connected. Two eight the land claims a North Carolina didn't suffer the same kind of problems that a lot of states did. George's processing was it was pretty much ballpark so every state suffered a little bit and fell behind simply because of the huge increase in claims which if I may add was boosted perhaps by congressional action that made it a bit too attractive for people to work in added categories of workers who were never typically able to qualify for unemployment before and so that that's a whole different side conversation but it does add to the fact that this was a new burden for new categories of workers that states a never seen before including Florida. Any other questions from committee. Yes representative your. Thank you miss most of term of I want to know where the chamber of commerce on this bill are they in favor of this bill all the neutral on what. I haven't had any input from the chamber of commerce there. Sign up thank to speak on the bill okay they in favor of the bill. That the claimant. The speak for the bill against their signed up to speak against the bill okay. All right. Was that all the questions you had represent al. The representative first you're recognized well I mean I continually hear this repeated that people are not taking jobs because they're getting unemployment benefits but I've never seen any factual evidence of that that seems to be sort of a myth that's floating around out there is there what evidence do you have of that in Arkansas that's an excellent question glad you brought it up I just had a call last week with the unemployment agency director in South Carolina and they had a task force put together a return to work task force where they collected some data in their state it hasn't been as robust a study in other states so I'm when I receive that they said it's that were now we're happy to share with you and we're happy for you to share with other states so make sure to pass that along they they found that the rates at which individuals were rejecting offers of suitable work were frankly on suitable. Presented Pilkington did you have a question. You're recognized thank you So I guess my understanding is if we act this bill would fraud does occur the mount of money lost by the state would be reduced correct. This bill is more targeted towards benefits structure you have another bill that's actually I have another one that I've I believe always be would support that deals more with the integrity processes cross checks things like that so. What this would do is basically reduces your if we're speaking to its impact on fraud would reduce your sort of universe of claims to the point where individuals who The amount of time it would take to go through your case workers are fact finders might be lessened but there's a different bill that will be heading through I believe this committee on program that's more focus on program integrity okay thank you that's all. the representative Allen you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman I'm trying to help me to understand What they're doing and. South Carolina has that germane to what's happening here in the state of Arkansas when she asked you your question a few minutes ago you cited South Carolina so we will know exactly what's going on in the state of Arkansas and if this is this bill necessary. I will unfortunately don't myself have access to that data I would be more than happy frankly to work with your agency on that and and and look at those numbers that's something that I'm always interested in I brought of South Carolina because that was the most recent example I've had where basically I was now. To put it does to put it one way I was kind of excited to be a given access to new pool of data on an issue that was brand new and relatively unstudied okay I wasn't trying to discredit what what you're saying but I just want to know how this Arkansas time to what they're doing and South Carolina yes Sir absolutely and and just to you know again there's a program integrity bill that I think will tackle a lot of the challenges facing the stay on that side and this is more about the incentives for work search a work search and protecting your trust fund and making sure that the benefits are there for the truly needy so the program integrity bill's going to make sure that they go to the individuals who are truly in need is gonna make sure that the money is there for the individuals who are truly in need okay follow up in the state of Arkansas most people that I know. I thank my people that I know they would rather have a job the Bill unemployment so when I hear statements made by people don't want to work they prefer to draw unemployment because they can make more money I have a found that to be true. Most people that I know and in my neighborhood and and people around my district they're all looking for jobs and they should know in the state of Arkansas well is critical in Little Rock we haven't had a lot of industry to locate here and to and to see the Little Rock soul Johnson not plentiful here like they are and some of the parts of the country would you agree. Thank you know I don't know the regional unemployment rates in the state of Arkansas but I do know that as a state you have been trending down for a for a good amount of time to the point where I believe you're at full employment full employment now you. Specific regions I'm not aware of but I do know that the United States department of labor bureau of labor statistics they often put together research and studies that talk about the amount of work within a reasonable geographic area the amount of work with that that's commutable the amount of work that's in a certain metropolitan area so. Set out to say this because what I'm trying to say is. It's important to set a baseline and set the presumption at here's our system's going to look at and here the rules are going to play by and I think it's worked out tremendously well in the number of states that have tried it. Thank you Mr chairman. Representative Dotson you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair Just with regards to section two of the bill where site the The various rates for. The weekly benefit amount depending on the unemployment rate. I guess. When does that trigger light when you're. It is safe we have a massive drop or increase in unemployment rate so that would have a dramatic increase in the number of weeks eligible but like with this most recent pandemic that that was more of a a dramatic drop and then a a bounce right straight back up that would of I think busted through a few of these levels I'm not sure where we're at today it's actually on this but if someone was qualified in the week they were there for say sixteen weeks and then we drop back down to where they would on the qualified for twelve. Does that then reduce their eligible I'm not sure that's clearly spelled out here I can say the best practices from the states that have done that to answer your question specifically this is something that I've been looking into it with the way Florida DO does it now. The quick background for how unemployment benefits are paid out when you get your first claim when you get a first check that starts what's called the benefit year. So typically the best practices you start your calculation based on an individual's benefit year and what the state unemployment rate what the states number of weeks available on there at the start of your at the start of your benefit year now in terms of how often you look at the unemployment rate in the state when you apply it again I'm sure a few best practices with a couple of states Florida does it once a year I've seen legislation that's actually working its way through the Ohio Ohio Iowa state house that they're thinking of doing it once a quarter I think whatever the agency would be comfortable and capable of doing it's meant to be responsive right so if you're only able to set the rate once a year okay twice a year once a quarter so it's done differently in different states. Okay thank you representative Coleman you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman. Can it give me the mechanics of how this bill legal implemented and how that differs from what we're doing now and how this would. In a pandemic tap affect what the these little specific on those. Sure. So rather than a flat sixteen weeks and this is not just to be clear this divorce from federal actions that you know various on off switch various other programs that may they may or may not pass or allowed to expire allowed to continue setting that aside for a second because frankly it's impossible to predict Capitol Hill. Rather than a standard sixteen weeks this is set to for state is at full employment five and a half percent an individual whose benefit year starts at that time gets twelve weeks three months to look for work if the unemployment rate is a bit higher it would just so. Does that answer your. The election social right now at six is sixteen weeks in what you're doing is reduced is on the amount of unemployment. And if the state is at a rate of full employment which is you know generally accepted five point five percent but I will say if you look at for example at the high of code for about a four month period when you're going from ten percent down to about seven percent you'd be at sixteen weeks there Assuming that the agency was able to properly and and and. UP I keep up to speed. The The employee rate statement in the state applied to the number of weeks. Okay but. Representative Ferguson you're recognized. I think you're overlooking something that wouldn't you agree that unemployment is not just as much of a benefit for an employee as it is for an employer of this pandemics a certain perfect situation and last these businesses got a PPP loan a payroll loan if you look at a restaurant say that was practically shut down it had to let employees go it's a great benefit to the employer for those people to be able to take you know sixteen weeks or whatever off and draw unemployment until the businesses back up and running and F. to be able to re hired them so at I mean I think you're I think you're addressing this completely wrong if you're just looking at it from the employee point of view. So is to run a small business that was actually one of the last jobs I had where we have had about eighteen employees at hiring and hiring hiring individuals and and managing them and setting shifts and have an hourly workers I can tell you I would not agree that that. Unemployment is a great benefit to the employer it's set up as a system to provide a type of insurance right that's what's called unemployment insurance it's it's insurance against unexpected job loss which is a benefit for the worker paid for by the employer. I would not. Take the next logically because we brought up the triple B. loans remember those restaurants were shut down for government action right they weren't just it in just decide to close their doors and lay people off right that's what happened all across this country and a lot of the different government programs kind of perverted the way that the unemployment system was designed and meant to operate so you know what Congress did was they stay said we have the triple B. long where we perhaps accidentally incentivizing Division was to lay people off I saw it in some of in a in my former business that was one of the consequences were to qualify they said well you have to many of your staff still on payroll what we want our staff on payroll Dalby so that in on top with the six hundred dollar boost kind of grafted this monster on top of the state unemployment system for the way it's supposed to work right so it as in terms of a benefit for employers there's another thing that gets overlooked throughout a lot of the states and this is a battle that was fought in state after state after state and things that had to be passed either through executive action or legislation a lot of employers are still going to get charged for those layoffs even though the state shut them down right because your unemployment tax rate is set to your history of laying people off the businesses were shut down through executive action in some states instance some states your legislation and then they had to go back and hit the pause button press rewind and say away I guess we shouldn't charge you for those layoffs that we forced you to make so I think it's it's a system that it's been around for a long time eighty years Great Depression era of the Great Depression era legislation in fact the first person whoever ran the social security board specifically said unemployment is not designed to fill all the needs and meets all the all the woes of the individual has laid off it's a temporary bridge to get you to the next job so. I guess I'm trying to say is I I would not agree that it's a great benefit to employees it's a program that exists to help individuals get to their next job and that's really the key here is the next job. I guess there is a distinction though a steer on unemployment there's someone that the employer has laid off not fired I mean it's not by any. Action of the employer because they were unhappy with the employee so I mean I think it's important that we help those employees move to different employment and I mean I as an employer to you I I I want to assure that I'd give those people every chance to find reemployment. I completely agree and that's why this program works what Florida found was that cut the time people spend on the system and have so what they were at when they first implemented this indexing program they were typical twenty six weeks state right and their average claims were about sixteen weeks of sixteen out of twenty six is how long it took people back then to look for work seven years into the program that got cut down to I think was eight point seven weeks under nine. When they were offering twelve right so people still no they weren't exhausting their benefits the rate that they might have expected but they were finding work much much much faster so they weren't losing out on anything they were simply finding work quicker. I have a question represent McCollum for you. You know we got a. Never stayed here and I heard a couple people say in their areas that it's a method. That there's jobs I'll just say in our area it's not a myth I mean there's people there's signs all over in the the restaurants there can't find people to work and I mean when you go to the local I. obvious to wait an hour because they don't have enough workers yet there are a lot of people still unemployment there so is that the same thing in your part of the state up in northwest. Senecal I'd say to a degree I mean I have heard from specific employers that they can't find workers and kind of what I alluded to to begin with and I don't discount your experience that you found representative Allen with talking to folks from your part of the state and what people are saying aye we probably all have different experiences and I I I would say probably that's the beauty of having a hundred members to bounce ideas off I've also heard that from other representatives as well so yes representative Ladyman. A representative cloud you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair. Help me with the possible scenario that on this initial claim let's say someone qualifies for the twelve weeks because it's five point five percent and then just say ten weeks into their their benefits then all of a sudden unemployment is at seven percent. How does that work is that does a person go ahead and go off their their claim at twelve weeks and they're done or has it has at work. This is a case where hopefully the state would be able to just. Right so for example there's always the opportunity for legislative action I'll say one of the things that North Carolina did they didn't adjust their benefit duration but they did make certain changes to the programs to alleviate some of that economic burden so. That is to say. The system works as it is it's meant to be responsive it's meant to adjust but there's always opportunity for for Follow up legislation to to. Tackle some of the unique challenges posed by what I believe to be a unique situation in terms of this cold outbreak So. If the state is able to properly adjust the benefit durations that would work just fine for that individual they'd get their you know twelve weeks up to sixteen weeks. But if now if not if you do once a year yes that would be the case. Follow up later yes you have fallen so. I'm not sure that I got my answer. So with this legislation in that scenario would that person be done at twelve weeks or then then would they go so to so to speak back in the queue and they can refile or would they be done. The legislation does have built into a certain authority granted to DWS this could be an example of one of those cases where the in concert with the legislature you choose what's right for a scenario like that which the likelihood of is an open question something in the future like that so I think the language in the bill that gives the gives DWS the authority to sort of employment rules and regulations to accomplish this would probably be able to address that specific concerns. Representative McCollum. A I want to ask that we hold this over there's a lot of discussion we've got another bill that we really need to get to solve a lot of folks here on another bill. So I'm an asset will this over to the next meeting. The if you would agree. Is there anyone that we can go ahead and speak here speak against our that the chamber one to speak to well there's still a lot of questions from committee okay and that we don't because of the I agree Mr thank you. So we'll is over to the next again thank you the Committee. Okay committee we're gonna hear S. B. for ten representative ray you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair if I could I Secretary Gillespie to come to the table with me. Yes. If you would please introduce yourself and who you represent. City Gillespie secretary department of Human Services thank you thank you representative you're recognized thank you Mr chair committee and I know this is a rather long and fairly complicated bill I'll try to get through it as quickly as I can I know we're kind of in a time crunch and then we also have several people here that could answer questions as well Secretary Gillespie have others at DHS the FNA I believe Allen McLean is Committee insurance commissioners here as well and essentially what this is this is our new Medicaid expansion waiver we're have one that ours expires our current waiver expires December thirty first of this year and so this is our attempt to codify The New waiver for the next five years We are changing the name from Arkansas Works to our home and that stands for Arkansas health an opportunity for me ACT. Hello what we do not know how could private secretary Gillespie explain this better but what we're doing is we're continuing the Q. HP's that we've had in place for the last well I guess since this program was initiated before not even my time in the legislature so we're continuing that Q. H. P. process but with some changes and so those changes one of the things we're doing is we're implementing what's called life three sixty homes I am so there's three distinct type of homes that will be used to essentially help assess certain demographics of people across the state some certain have high risk demographics across the state and in doing so it will also help prop up a lot of our rural hospitals across the state so it's a kind of a win win for everyone and in doing that we hope to have much better outcomes for a law to beneficiaries that are on the program so one of those is the rural our homes Haynes of sixty percent of rural Arkansas and I've got the statistic here by confined it about sixty percent of the rural hospitals in the state of Arkansas are at higher immediate risk for closure and I found it here in a minute. Then after the the rural our homes. We've got the maternal our homes and the in app and that's for essentially we're forty not the maternal and infant outcomes in the state so this is an attempt to essentially have C. and properly train people into the homes when necessary to help these high risk pregnancies and then also after birth to help with the needs that come after that and then also the success our homered success life three sixty home and that. Did we we did pass out these books if we I don't think at the three sixty home that's targeted toward young adults veterans formerly incarcerated use as well as the keep the John have a handheld. We may not have given it to committee. White yes see if we got it we can handed out and and then also it's foster kids that is essentially aged out of the system a program targeted directly for them as well. And so that's one of the things we're trying to do to improve the outcomes so DHS is been meeting with a lot of the legislators in qual and other interested parties for the last year trying to figure out exactly how to make this work and what everyone wanted one of the things that a lot of people wanted that we've added into the bill is an accountability of measure and that accountability essentially says there are sixteen her house at sixteen Secretary Gillespie how many outcomes are we track enters a thirty one it's there's over thirty different measure okay thirty different measures that were that will be tracking and essentially holding the Q. H. P.'s or the insurance carriers accountable and just to be clear on this I don't want a year from now ready come say will there are you know we're the metrics are not meet metrics they're not this or that the waivers will start if approved by CMS on January first of twenty twenty two a that year will be baseline and then we'll take the second and after the years after that you compared to baseline to make sure that we are making improvements in all of these outcomes If the outcomes are not being met there will be mechanism in there of contracts for monetary penalties with the Q. H. fees with the insurance carriers we're also setting up an Advisory Council that will be monitoring and tracking all these metrics as well Trying to think what else we've got in here those are the main. Pieces of the bill secretary Gillespie G. one add anything to that sure no I think that's a very good summary the other component of it is a focus very much with this population on economic independence and one of the things we are doing is the Q. H. P.'s the health plans that The population will be and we'll still play pay for their health care as they always have but those will also now include incentives that they offer to try to incentivize activity in two areas one health Perhaps incentivizing a a pregnant woman to make sure she makes her prenatal visits that that sort of activity the other thing is they will be incentivizing economic activity take a work assessment attend the attend a session to do different things and they'll be incentivizing people to do some of those types of activity as well and I think one of the other components of that is we really are making the health plans there for. Or robust in ways in that while they're focused on healthcare they're also recognizing that the other part of someone's health is in fact their of their desire and their ability to have a career to grow their skills to grow their education to really move up that does impact your health and so they're focused on that broader look at the person and not just the same size same version there always was You'll see in there that we talk about the incentive plans it's structured as representative ray said off of what we have now but the incentive plans that that these narrow Q. H. peace now are they offer a much broader set of They offer much more than just the basic healthcare services now so we also will have a component of it where if someone is not utilizing that health plan what will happen is they're not utilizing those incentives they're not taking advantage of being insured then that person will eventually wind up in fee for service Medicaid because they're not taking advantage of being in that more insured environment like someone else might be so that's that's another component of what we really do plan to as part of this measure not just health outcomes but measure economic independence outcomes because that's a that's an equally important part of it. All right a representative are you done with your presentation yes I am. At the time yes Sir. All right of. Representative Payton you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr miss close for you we're talking about incentives. And so I'm curious. If we're incentivizing them for certain behavior is it actually monetary cash benefit goes to him or is it a penalty for not doing. no it's well. Six I kind of I guess it's or depends on who you are it's how you see it so one of the other components in general usually the way incentives work is you incentivize people and the carriers as we said we'll be designing different things but you usually incentivize people by saying if you do action you will receive Y. okay so If you go to a if you go to the following. Classes of making one up nothing this will be one but like if you go to the following if you go to these classes that will teach you how to do how to better parent your baby right or how to work with your baby in a certain way you might get diapers for that so that might be more of that kind of incentive all right but the other side of it would be an act this way said It for depends the way you would look at the other side of it might be one of the things that the bill now includes is it puts cost sharing on the Arkansas what is currently Arkansas Works will be the our home population they currently do not have cost sharing other than those above a hundred two hundred thirty eight who pair share their premium so it puts cost sharing their when you put carsharing you can then. Reduced cost sharing or eliminate cost sharing as an incentive right so you can huh. You can say to someone if you'll if you'll go to these types of visits if you'll do acts you won't have any cost sharing if you if you take those actions follow up yeah if I can one simple example might be we do that right now with the states employee benefit plan we all get the opportunity to relieve ourselves of some of the cost sharing every year if you do a wellness visit you get a fifty dollar reduction and what you pay so almost everybody does a well this is it in order to save that fifty dollars right so it that's how cost sharing can be used in that kind of way to incentivize behavior you're recognized for follow up thank you Mr and I appreciate your explanation is very good on that I like algebra when you said X. and Y. you had section so the X. is is what we expect them to do and the why is the penalty or the and Senate sent of and so. As taxpayers who are paying the bill. Why changes are cost. If they'd take the actions and their health gets better and their and for. They are able to improve their education and skills and move from working twenty hours a week to forty hours a week and so what in the hell sorry one but all of. So Alex is what we expect of them why changes are cost as taxpayers but you through another component in there when you said that if they don't do acts we may move them to fee for service. So we're protecting we're using our incentives to try to get good behavior this gonna save the insurance companies money and if they don't do the good behavior to save the insurance companies money that we're going to offer you for service. Tell me why I'm wrong there okay so it. Truck if I could let's take it from this perspective if they If someone. Every situation is different right so if someone is working twenty hours a week and they're working twenty hours a week because they have some health problems right before they are working twenty hours a week because they've never really developed the skills to move into a more full time role or something that pays better. If we're able to work with them and get them to move up the income ladder where they completely Roloff within they are no longer they don't belong to the carrier but they also don't belong to fee for service they're completely outside of the social program that's what we want to achieve. Four they are someone who gets healthier. And therefore they are not using up as much cost that holds down increases in future years in terms of the health of the whole population will drive what the future your costs are so it actually does end up benefiting us to get to try to work with people to get them to be healthier. And to move up the income ladder it works it helps us out no more follow ups. All right members we are going to be called back in session in three minutes. So I need to let you go I've got a question before we leave and I need to restore hands if we come back to finish this bill and this bill only. Raise your hand if you will come back. Please come back come on. I think that motion representative shall what that many. Okay. All right I see no other option than to adjourn because we don't have that many people are going to be returning. So what we're going to have to move this to the next meeting I don't know any other way to do it. Okay let me see the hands again and anybody who's going to come back. I don't need maybes I'm already some of I can't count was raging and this is not high school one. That's what the people that don't have their injuries I think or knows anything okay based on what's happening here I I do see a quorum. Sorry. I do see enough people for a quorum so we will recess and we will come back. So that. Yeah I allowed the. Okay we're on recess and will return five minutes after the session ends. It's. Thank. Today's. But not a good one. All.