As a person of Faith it is my calling to support these areas of concern and I ask you to consider how important these issues are and to vote to approve them!

On behalf of the 9,000 members of the Virginia Professional Fire Fighters, I ask you to SUPPORT HB1818. This legislation seeks to add full-time salaried emergency medical technicians to the list of public safety employees who are entitled to a presumption for hypertension and heart disease. To limit its fiscal impact, this bill provides for a local option and outlines that the presumption will only be provided in those jurisdictions that have authorized such presumption by local ordinance. The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act provides a presumption for hypertension for many public safety officials, including fire fighters, police officers and correctional officers. However, the statute omitted many EMS providers when the presumption was first established in 1975. While some EMS providers are cross trained as fire fighters and covered within the presumption, that is not the case in every jurisdiction. For example, Virginia Beach has 65 medics that are classified as full-time salary Emergency Medical Technicians and are not included within the definitions outlined in § 65.2-402. Portsmouth has another 27. These EMS providers preform the same type of strenuous activities as the others currently included in the presumption section. Therefore, VPFF supports HB1818 and request that you add emergency medical technicians to the list of public safety employees who are entitled to a presumption for hypertension and heart disease.

My name is Joey Hundley and I am the Deputy EMS Chief for the Virginia Beach Department of EMS. Thank you Representatives Heretick and Convirs-Fowler for introducing this bill and to the Committee for taking the time to review it. This is an important step for our providers since we are a third service (Police, Fire, EMS) department. We have had providers in the recent past who left the department under medical conditions that, had this been in place for us at the time, would have been covered due to the medical condition. Virginia Beach EMS is in favor of the bill and we thank you for your support.

Chair and members of their committee, My name is Kurt Detrick and I serve as a District Vice President for the Virginia Professional Firefighters, an organization that represents almost 9,000 firefighters and paramedics across the commonwealth. I am writing today in STONG SUPPORT of HB1818. Our career EMS providers are exposed to many of the same hazardous environments that firefighters are. It is long over due that they receive the same benefits that our firefighters do. Career EMS providers are exposed to long work hours, lack or sleep, exposures to carcinogens which all have been proven to lead to long term health complications. We are requesting the support and passage of HB1818. Respectfully, Kurt Detrick

Honorable committee members, Thank you for your consideration to include EMS providers under the heart presumption of the Heart and Lung Act. As a non-fire department based agency this has been an item we have longed for since our first year as a full-time career providers in 2004. In March 2020 U.S. News and World Report listed Paramedic as the fourth most stressful job in the United States. We routinely must make decisions away from hospitals regarding our patients health and lives. Multiple studies have shown that high stress jobs have increased occurrences of heart related diseases such as hypertension and heart disease which increases risk of heart attack. With the novel coronavirus, these stresses increase. As a pandemic front line provider we are willing to risk all for others. Many are exposed to the virus even while using all recommended precautions and we routinely see COVID positive patients multiple times a day. The long term effects of the virus are still not completely known but have already included cardiac issues such as palpitations and myocarditis (inflammation of the heart). There is additional stress out of concern that we could bring it home to our families as well. Before the pandemic, our department had a Medic that had suffered a cardiac arrest at work and had thankfully survived, but was unable to return to work. Without the presumption, she was forced to retire at 16 years of service to the citizens and its visitors at a reduced rate. As a husband and father myself, this is concerning. Like the pandemic, taking all precautions like proper diet, exercise, and not smoking is no guarantee that EMS providers won't suffer a cardiac event and not be able to provide for their families. We can, and must do better to care for those who are willing to risk illness and injury to themselves in order to serve others. We do this while away from our families during nights, weekends, holidays, and routinely miss family events just like our public safety partners in Fire and Law Enforcement. It's only right, that we be included under the heart presumption of the Heart Lung Act. Again, I thank you for your consideration. Very respectfully, Michael Brown Captain, Virginia Beach EMS

Delegates, My name is Max Gonano and I am the president of the Virginia Beach Professional Firefighters, IAFF Local 2924. I am writing to ask you to support HB1818 which would give localities the option of including full-time salary career single role EMS providers and EMS volunteers the same kind of workers compensation heart disease presumption that is enjoyed by the firefighters, police officers, sheriffs, and correctional officers in the Commonwealth of Virginia. While many EMS providers are cross trained as Firefighters, thus including them in the current heart disease workers compensation presumption, that is not the case in every jurisdiction. Through a legislative oversight, EMS providers who are not cross trained in firefighting are not covered under workers compensation heart disease presumption. This is wrong. In Virginia Beach there are approximately 68 full-time salary EMS providers that cannot be included in heart disease presumption without this legislation because they are single role providers. This legislative oversight means that EMS providers responding to EMS calls in the City of Virginia Beach do not have the same workers compensation presumptions that are enjoyed by the cross trained Fire/EMS providers in the rest of the Commonwealth. This legislation requested by the City of Virginia Beach, among others, is not an unfunded mandate on localities because it is entirely optional. Voting for this legislation means voting to allow the few localities that have single role career EMS and volunteer EMS if those so choose the option to provide them with the same heart disease presumption that is currently maintained for firefighters, police officers, sheriffs, and correctional officers. This is a matter of parity and a matter of fairness for those that have been on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic for the last 10 months. I ask for your support. Sincerely, Max Gonano President, Virginia Beach Professional Firefighters Local 2924 (757)642-3776 mobile

In favor of programs to better facilitate the development and progress of my community.

My name is Kurt Detrick and I serve as a district Vice President for the Virginia Professional Firefighters, an organization that represents almost 9,000 firefighters and paramedics across the commonwealth. I am writing today in STONG SUPPORT of HB1818. Our career EMS providers are exposed to many of the same hazardous environments that firefighters are. It is long over due for them to receive the same benefits that our firefighters do. Career EMS providers are exposed to long work hours, lack or sleep, exposures to carcinogens which all have been proven to lead to long term health complications. We are requesting the support and passage of HB1818. Respectfully, Kurt Detrick

Here to answer any questions on behalf of DHRM.

Answering questions related to Workers' Compensation Bills

As a person of Faith it is my calling to support these areas of concern and I ask you to consider how important these issues are and to vote to approve them!

I was asked to be available for the meeting.

Thanks very much for allowing me to speak with you. As a Virginia educator for the past 30 years, all of which have been spent in small, rural localities across the state, I have seen clear disparity in how our school divisions are able to access resources. I have never seen a disparity as glaring, or harmful, as the current inequality in access to broadband. As more and more essential services are made accessible via the internet, this inequity across the commonwealth is being highlighted. Today, almost 40% of the families in the community I serve do not have internet capability due to a lack of broadband. Aside from the impact given that so many healthcare and government services are being delivered online, student learning is suffering dramatically. Rural localities have suffered for years because of the lack of broadband. For decades divisions with broadband capability have employed learning management systems to streamline delivery of instruction, communication with families, and reduce consumption of paper. Many of us who lack broadband have been unable to justify the cost when so many families wouldn't be able to access it, so we’ve been stuck in dated systems that don’t serve our communities as well as suburban and urban localities with broadband can. The disparity became even more pronounced when schools were forced to close last March, and have continued to operate with significant remote, at-home learning. Imagine your doctor trying to assess your blood cholesterol level remotely, without the ability to connect with you online. Impossible. Similarly, our teachers aren’t able to assess the impact of regressed literacy and numeracy, developments that are absolutely essential building blocks to the learning Virginia will need students to have accomplished to contribute to the future economy, let alone lead productive and rewarding lives. The academic gaps that concerned us before the pandemic are growing at an alarming rate. Hotspots have enabled some to connect, but in localities where cell service is sparse, even those solutions come very short of providing the necessary access. My own home is located in an area without access to broadband. The estimate to bring cable internet to my home was just under $7,000. Our families cannot bear this burden. The impact of students’ inability to access learning because of inadequate access to broadband will be astounding. Addressing this disparity will have direct and lasting impact on the inequity among Virginia’s families. We simply cannot continue to allow it to be unresolved. Thank you for your consideration. Peter M. Gretz, Division Superintendent, Middlesex County Public Schools.

RE: Support for HB1822 – Cost-sharing payments for prescription asthma inhalers Dear Members of the Virginia House Labor and Commerce Subcommittee, Allergy & Asthma Network, a leading national nonprofit dedicated to protecting and improving the health of people with allergies, asthma and related conditions, supports bill HB1822, which aims to limit patient cost sharing for asthma medications to $50. With more than 22 million Americans living with asthma, including 6 million children, asthma remains one of the most serious chronic diseases, especially among low-income populations and certain racial and ethnic groups. Approximately 3,600 Americans die each year from asthma and this chronic condition costs the U.S. healthcare system $80 billion annually in direct healthcare expenditures (emergency department visits and hospitalizations) and indirect costs from lost productivity (missed school days and work days). We appreciate your consideration, and we hope you will support HB1822. Please contact me or our Director of Advocacy Charmayne Anderson at 703-641-9595 if you have any questions. To learn more about Allergy & Asthma Network, visit AllergyAsthmaNetwork.org. Thank you. Sincerely, Tonya A. Winders President and CEO

RE: Support for HB1822 – Cost-sharing payments for prescription asthma inhalers Dear Members of the Virginia House Labor and Commerce Subcommittee, Allergy & Asthma Network, a leading national nonprofit dedicated to protecting and improving the health of people with allergies, asthma and related conditions, supports bill HB1822, which aims to limit patient cost sharing for asthma medications to $50. With more than 22 million Americans living with asthma, including 6 million children, asthma remains one of the most serious chronic diseases, especially among low-income populations and certain racial and ethnic groups. Approximately 3,600 Americans die each year from asthma and this chronic condition costs the U.S. healthcare system $80 billion annually in direct healthcare expenditures (emergency department visits and hospitalizations) and indirect costs from lost productivity (missed school days and work days). We appreciate your consideration, and we hope you will support HB 342. Please contact me or our Director of Advocacy Charmayne Anderson at 703-641-9595 if you have any questions. To learn more about Allergy & Asthma Network, visit AllergyAsthmaNetwork.org. Thank you. Sincerely, Tonya A. Winders President and CEO

The VA College of Emergency Physicians supports Delegate Askew's HB 1822 that limits cost sharing payments for asthma inhalers. Our ER physicians across the Commonwealth see patients who return often to the emergency department because they cannot afford to regularly fill their asthma inhalers. The more we can do on the front end to get patients the medications they need, the less likely they are to end up in our emergency departments and able to lead healthy lives. We hope you will pass this bill.

I am for nurse practitioner to be able to practice without a doctor being there

Addressing topics for perspective is a form of growth.

This bill is premature as the DOLI will be directed, by letter from the Speaker, to study this issue and report recommendations to the GA for consideration. Those recommendations may result in the need for future legislation. The letter to DOLI is in response to an apprenticeship study resolution patroned by Del. Simmonds and heard by House Rules.

The Fredericksburg Regional Chamber supports apprenticeship programs and the valuable skills/pathway to a career they provide, however, this legislation would preclude many currently qualified contractors from public construction contracts. Many contractors may not have an apprenticeship program for every trade practiced within the company. This bill would force those who do not have the program to make costly changes to their company in order to compete. For these reasons, we regretfully oppose the bill.

My name is Ross Snare and I represent the Prince William Chamber of Commerce and its 1200+ Members, while we strongly support apprenticeship programs and see them as an valuable asset that will improve the economic standing of the Commonwealth, we have concerns on the impact that this bill will have fiscally on contractors and therefore, cannot support the bill.

My name is Emily Reynolds and I am the Executive Director of Government Affairs for the Hampton Roads Chamber. We are a pro-business organization serving over 1,200 members. On behalf of our members and the feedback we have received regarding this bill, we have concerns. While the Chamber supports apprenticeship programs and the valuable skills/pathway to a career they provide, this legislation would preclude many currently qualified contractors from public construction contracts. Many contractors may not have an apprenticeship program for every trade practiced within the company. This bill would force those who do not have the program to make costly changes to their company in order to compete. For these reasons, we regretfully oppose the bill.

The Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce opposes this bill. While we support apprenticeship programs and the valuable skills/pathway to a career they provide, this legislation would preclude many currently qualified contractors from public construction contracts. Many contractors may not have an apprenticeship program for every trade practiced within the company, and this would bill would force those who do not to make costly changes to their company in order to compete.

On behalf of the over 8600 United Association members and families across Virginia, I ask you to support HB 1849. Participants in a registered apprenticeship program receive the best available education in their craft, from safety standards to construction codes to the daily on-the-job training apprentices get while being supervised by licensed journeyman workers. Using workers trained in these self-funded programs provides untold value to Virginia and all its public bodies when they need to complete a construction project. We must ensure that the contractors hired to perform work on taxpayer-funded construction projects use workers who have completed this caliber of training. These programs must have a proven track record of consistently graduating students from apprentice to journeyman to add to this value. HB 1849 will guarantee these high-quality apprenticeship programs, and the contractors who use them are the ones providing the workers for public construction projects. For all these reasons, I ask you to support this legislation.

Apprenticeships provide the training for future tradesmen, both by in classroom education and on the job training. Virginia needs to ensure that any contractor performing work in the commonwealth is participating in a registered apprenticeship. This provides not just the labor for the project today, but the training for the future jouneyperson. Additionally, this bill will prevent the exploitation of workers by contractors due to worker misclassification. This bill provides an avenue to ensure that new workers are given a hand up nw, rather than looking for a hand out later.

HB 1849 Virginia Public Procurement Act; participation in apprenticeship training programs, etc. I support HB 1849 Virginia Public Procurement Act, Introduced by: Shelly A. Simonds I support the expansion of self-funded apprenticeship training programs; Virginia should require its public bodies to include in every contract for construction over $250,000 provisions requiring the contractor, during the performance of the contract, to participate in a self-funded apprenticeship training program for each separate trade or classification program in which it employs construction employees. In addition, as the Act proposes, Virginia should ensure General Contractors, Prime Contractors and Construction Managers write subcontracts with flow down provisions in all subcontracts over $50,000 so that such self-funded apprenticeship provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor. Lou Spencer Caret, Virginia

To whom it may concern, I have been involved in both residential and commercial construction for over 30 years in Virginia. First as an untrained worker when I started and then as an apprentice where I learned the proper, safe and most efficient way to perform my job to finally becoming a journey person to have the knowledge and wisdom to perform my work safely and properly. I feel it is critical and should be necessary for trades workers to be properly trained through properly accredited Apprenticeship programs to have the skills needed to construct, service and maintain all residential, commercial and infrastructure safely to protect the public and all that use or reside in it especially everything with government funding in it at the minimum. The tax payers deserve the best possible built government funded projects as possible since it will be their taxes paying for them and the public citizens will be accessing and using these projects. In conclusion once again for every ones safety please have the commonsense to require proper training through apprenticeship and proper classification so the correctly trained people are doing the work that they are correctly trained to do. Please look to the Commissioner of Labor's Office for further facts backing my concerns with injuries and deaths contributed to unskilled and misclassified workers performing the wrong jobs. Concerned Citizen,

My name is Jolicia Ward, and I am an Advocate for Demario Joyner, an innocent seventeen-year-old African American teenager shot in the back of head by Virginia Beach Police Officer Robert C. Ernest after running from gun shots at a local party held at The Beach House in Virginia Beach, Virginia on January 16, 2005. Since January 16, 2005, Demario’s family has been completely stripped of their civil rights. Demario’s lifeless body was left hanging on a fence for over six hours with no immediate medical care. Demario’s family stated that they believe if he would have received medical attention with in the first thirty minutes, he could of possibly survived. Demario’s family was also not allowed to identify his body at all through the entire process. The Virginia Beach Police Department and The City of Virginia Beach never communicated with Demario’s family at all during the entire medical examination process and investigation process. Demario’s family was left without a son, without a brother and no answers why. Demario’s family is ready to fight for justice and I am leading the way. Delegate Stephen Heretick requested the police report of Demario Joyner to help with the assistance of redrafting a proposal. I contacted the Virginia Beach Police Department via phone Tuesday, August 18, 2020 and an Officer stated that Demario Joyner’s case was an investigation case, and they can only release the report to the next legal kin on the death certificate with a valid driver’s license and death certificate. Darlene Taylor goes up to The Virginia Beach Police Department in person with the proper documentation on August 25, 2020 and The Virginia Beach Police Department stated they purged his record which I believe is false and is another violation of his family’s civil right. Now we have no police report to give to Delegate Heretick which is what he specifically requested to redraft this legislation in Demario’s honor. Delegate Heretick stated he does not understand exactly how he could request and receive a copy of the police report if Demario’s mother cannot obtain one. He then made myself aware of HB2004 sponsored by Delegate Hurst that could address this problem by requiring law enforcement to release information about cases once investigations are closed. This is a critical and important bill for the state of Virginia. Without HB2004, these are the type of situations families in the very community that all of us live in will be suffering from. They would continue to be humiliated and stripped of their God given civil rights. HB2004 has the power to save the lives of thousands and bring justice home to those who have been living a long time without it. Please pass HB2004 as it will have an overall powerful positive impact in the criminal justice system.

Greetings: My name is Jarrett Adams, and I am a criminal defense and civil rights attorney based in Manhattan, New York. I practice in federal and state courts throughout the country to defend clients claiming actual innocence, in various phases of criminal proceedings. I provide this letter in support of Bill #HB2004, and to give an example of how impactful the power of transparency is for justice in any aspect of the criminal justice system. In 2016, I co-founded the non-profit Life After Justice to advocate for the rights and release of wrongfully convicted individuals and support them through re-entry afterwards. I was inspired to start Life After Justice after my own journey of a false accusation leading to my conviction and incarceration. I was exonerated roughly 10 years after I was sentenced, and ultimately found redemption. Due to my personal and professional experiences, I am aware of how imperative it is to reinvestigate cases to exhaustion after conviction. People’s lives do not stop once they are convicted, and it is our societal duty to ensure that all claims of wrongful conduct are thoroughly investigated. This is only feasible through the release of complete investigative files. I support Bill #HB2004 regarding the release of information for closed cases because I am one of thousands of advocates that rely on meticulous and far-reaching post-conviction investigations in order to do my job effectively. Currently, I am working to secure the release of two innocent Virginia men from federal custody. See (https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/jury-acquitted-two-men-in-1998-murder-of-waverly- police-officer-but-both-serving-life/article_94253acf-22d0-59d7-806e-0ed27b8f40ef.html) and (https://www.change.org/p/sussex-county-commonwealth-attorney-terrence-richardson-and-ferrone- claiborne-have-been-wrongfully-incarcerated-for-20-years-801c7893-88a9-4335-8472- 4acd680f1cde?recruiter=1525985&recruited_by_id=a2a41f60-d02c-012f-1e60-40401bfb75). Proving both men’s innocence has been a challenge, especially since the state police refuse to allow access to the criminal file that may hold more evidence of innocence. After filing FOIA requests that were ultimately denied, I was only able to obtain pertinent information about the case through happenstance—old files that were dumped in a facility's storage after an unsuccessful post-conviction hearing. Through reviewing these old files, I discovered new evidence pointing to Mr. Richardson’s and Mr. Claiborne’s innocence. These documents revealed statements from a witness that provided a description of the perpetrator that did not match the two men, and record of an anonymous tip naming an alternate suspect. None of this information was disclosed to Mr. Richardson’s and Mr. Claiborne’s attorneys at the time of trial. It is preposterous and completely unjust that coincidence delivered the documents that I previously requested through FOIA. The current barrier to accessing information is a threat to the integrity of the criminal justice system and must be repaired at once. If the practice of restricting access to criminal files continues, innocent men and women may die in prison never having a chance to prove their innocence, thus imposing a separate and cruel form of punishment. Passing Bill #HB2004 would be a most appropriate step in preventing such an injustice. Sincerely, ___________________ Jarrett Adams, Esq.

Robert Bryan Haskins. Commonwealth’s Attorney for Pittsylvania County. I am writing on behalf of the Virginia Association of Commonwealth’s Attorneys (VACA) to address the fiscal impact of HB 2004. VACA is opposed to HB 2004 because Commonwealth’s Attorneys do not have the resources to handle the obligations imposed by the bill. Virginia FOIA law contemplates a five day turnaround to comply with a FOIA demand. This time frame contemplates a process whereby a request is responded to by copying papers, video, and audio and mailing them out as a package to the requestor. This cannot be the process with the many redactions required for criminal investigative files, and Commonwealth’s Attorneys simply do not have the staff or resources to manage this redaction process. It is one thing to say there will be no fiscal impact because Commonwealth’s Attorneys can charge reasonable copying fees. This argument misses the point of who will have abandon their current caseload to do work. Countless hours will be spent reviewing every document, every video, and every audio recording to redact all references to the victim and to redact information which other statutes require not to be released. For cases older than 5 years we will need to find VRCs just to watch the video much less edit the tapes. These redactions require legal interpretation of the FOIA statutes and how they interact with other law enforcement records privacy statutes found elsewhere within the code. The workload of file review and redaction cannot be delegated to an already burdened administrative assistant. The hours of work required will fall on the attorneys who are already either in court fighting today’s cases or out of court preparing for tomorrow’s cases. If HB 2004 passes there will be a rush to demand files from the media, the friends of defendants, and the simply curious. Without proper funding and staffing these FOIA requests will cripple our ability to help today’s victims because we are having to spend our time reviewing and redacting yesterday’s cases. VACA respectfully submits that HB 2004 is advancing without any consideration of the impact on the workload of Commonwealth’s Attorney’s offices. VACA submits that a study is needed before anyone can responsibly predict this bill’s impact on the operations of our offices. For the reasons stated above VACA respectfully opposes HB 2004.

The Virginia Coalition for Open Government supports HB2004. Records in a criminal investigative file have been generated, created and maintained because they have value to the agency that has them. They reflect the work of the law enforcement agency or state department. They have value to the public, too. We whose taxes fund these offices. We who have given our consent to be governed. And we who are impacted by that governance. These records have little value to us as a means of oversight if we cannot access them. Law enforcement has an interest in transparency, too. The records can refute a claim of malfeasance or prove that decisive action was taken when things went wrong. They can corroborate competence or adherence to policy. They can tell the story of the hard work that went into solving or pursuing a case. Other states around the country — from “red” Louisiana to “blue” Connecticut — and the federal government allow access to a far larger pool of criminal investigative files than Virginia does. And they do so without compromising the integrity of the records or the safety of law enforcement personnel. Please support HB 2004 and lift the curtain on the work of this part of the criminal justice system.

The Innocence Project at University of Virginia (UVA) School of Law, Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project (MAIP) and national Innocence Project make up the Virginia Innocence Coalition, which advocates for policies that address and prevent wrongful convictions. The Virginia Innocence Coalition strongly supports House Bill 2004. We thank Delegate Hurst and the Virginia Freedom of Information Act Council for developing this legislation. While the majority of states (32) and the federal government permit public access to inactive criminal investigative files, Virginia gives police agencies complete discretion about whether to release this information. Agencies frequently deny requests, leaving crime victims without closure, police-shooting victims without justice, and wrongfully convicted people without a way to prove innocence. House Bill 2004 would fix the broken law by presuming public access to inactive criminal investigative files, unless any of six exemptions apply. House Bill 2004 is based on the federal Freedom of Information Act. The federal model is used in 12 other states. The proposal balances the public’s right to know with protections for ongoing investigations, privacy and safety. The bill would: -Presume public access to criminal investigative files for law enforcement investigations or proceedings that are not considered “ongoing.” -Define an “ongoing” investigation or proceeding as one in which the case has not been finally adjudicated, evidence continues to be gathered, and the case would be jeopardized with premature release of the information. -Allows custodian to withhold criminal investigative files based on six exemptions for: 1) Interference with an ongoing law enforcement investigation or proceeding; 2) Deprivation of the right to a fair trial; 3) Unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; 4) Disclosure of identity of a confidential informant, 5) Disclosure of law enforcement technique or procedure that could risk circumvention of the law; 6) Endangerment of life or safety of an individual. This proposal is critical to meet demands for police accountability and racial justice. Innocence organizations are regularly forced to close wrongful conviction investigations because police agencies deny access to old case files. For example, a corrupt police officer framed four innocent sailors in the “Norfolk Four” case and is now in federal prison for other crimes. Innocence organizations are unable to review other cases in which the detective may have framed innocent people because requests for investigative files have been rejected by the Norfolk Police Department. Mandating release of these records will help overturn wrongful convictions and detect the actual perpetrators. It is also critical for victims. The Virginia Beach Police Department completed its investigation into last year’s mass shooting that killed 12 people at the city municipal center. The department is denying requests from victims’ families for the complete investigative files. Providing victims with access to this information will help answer questions about what happened to their loved ones.

The Virginia Press Association supports HB 2004 (Hurst). We join with open government advocates in ensuring that citizens and the press have access to criminal incident information for responsible journalism. We thank Delegate Hurst and all stakeholders for their work on this bill.

The goal of the legislation is to establish a mechanism that requires release of some criminal investigative files in some instances. The purpose is not to throw open the doors wide to any and every disclosure, but it is to understand that there is public interest and public value — through accountability — in records that are no longer part of an open, active investigation. Records in a criminal investigative file have been generated, created and maintained because they have value to the agency that has them. They reflect the work of the law enforcement agency or state department. They have value to the public, too. We whose taxes fund these offices. We who have given our consent to be governed. And we who are impacted by that governance. But these records have little value to us as a means of oversight if we cannot access them. There are defendants, victims, families of both, media, researchers, academics, civil rights advocates, attorneys, former officers, and others who have interest in these files.  The public has an interest in monitoring the work of the government. The government with a very difficult and delicate job to do, but the government with extraordinary power over individuals and communities. And law enforcement. They too have an interest in transparency. The records can refute a claim of malfeasance or prove that decisive action was taken when things went wrong. They can corroborate competence or adherence to policy. They can tell the story of the hard work that went into solving or pursuing a case. Attempts to open up the records relating to policing, prosecuting and punishing people have been fought under a doomsday scenario that sees access to records and the information contained in them as a tool for new or additional wrongdoing. Records will be manipulated or altered. Records will jeopardize some other possible prosecution some time in the future. Records will be used to harm officers. Records will be quoted out of context. Or, the public doesn’t have the ability to understand what’s in the records. But make no mistake: other states around the country — from “red” Louisiana to “blue” Connecticut — and the federal government -- allow access to a far larger pool of criminal investigative files than Virginia does. And they do so without compromising the integrity of the records or the safety of law enforcement personnel. Please support HB 2004 and lift the curtain on the work of this part of the criminal justice system.

Dear Members of the Virginia General Assembly: On behalf of the Coalition for a Strong Virginia Economy, our 31 business associations wish to express our position that it is crucial that the General Assembly avoid mandates and increased taxes on small businesses and instead looks for ways to help businesses recover. We respectively ask the committee not to move these bills forward. HB 1785 Ward HB 1977 Askew HB 2037 Tran HB 2040 Hudson HB 2015 Ayala HB 2016 Ayala HB 2103 Reid HB 2137 Guzman HB 2228 Guzman Best Regards, Associated Builders and Contractors of Virginia Associated General Contractors of Virginia Delmarva Chicken Association Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce Harrisonburg – Rockingham Chamber of Commerce Heavy Construction Contractors Association National Federation of Independent Business Northern Virginia Chamber of Commerce Northern Virginia Transportation Business Coalition Precast Concrete Association of Virginia Richmond Area Municipal Contractors Association Shellfish Growers of Virginia Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Virginia Agribusiness Council Virginia Association of Roofing Professionals Virginia Association for Home Care and Hospice Virginia Automatic Merchandising Association Virginia Contractor Procurement Alliance Virginia Forestry Association Virginia Forest Products Association Virginia Loggers Association Virginia Manufactured Association and Modular Housing Association Virginia Manufacturers Association Virginia Peninsula Chamber of Commerce Virginia Poultry Federation Virginia Retail Federation Virginia Seafood Council Virginia Trucking Association Virginia Veterinary Medical Association Virginia Wholesalers and Distributors Association Virginia Wineries Association

The Virginia Association of Free and Charitable Clinics respectfully opposes HB 2015. Free and charitable clinics cannot afford an unbudgeted increase of 50% in the wages of their health care providers. As 501c3 non-profit organizations, these clinics rely chiefly on donations to fund their operations. Moreover, they are already burdened with additional unbudgeted costs due to the pandemic, such as the purchase of PPE, sanitation expenses, and the hiring of additional paid providers to make up for a shortage of volunteer providers. This bill would only serve to compound this rising cost burden and lead free clinics to curtail their operations and potentially furlough or layoff health care providers at a time when access to quality health care, including COVID-19 testing and vaccinations, has never been more critical for the 60,000 vulnerable Virginians the clinics serve.

I am writing on behalf of the Virginia Airport Operators Council (VAOC), to ask for your consideration of an amendment to HB2015 related to hazard pay for airport workers. The VAOC represents the interest of Virginia’s 66 public-use airports. These airports are critical economic gateways to our state, provide convenient, safe, secure, and beneficial access to the largest of our cities and the smallest of our communities. As airport operators, we recognize the front-line essential role our workers contribute in keeping Virginia’s air transportation system operating and the public safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. We value our workforce who possess highly specialized training and skills that are unique to our industry. Many roles at an airport require on-the-job training and a long-term commitment to continued education to be able to perform the job effectively. The reward for the employees is typically higher pay, job security, and accelerated career advancement. Most airports in the Commonwealth are operated by local government entities or Boards and Commissions that have no direct taxing authority. Therefore, we strive to operate within our budgets and to limit the financial burden on our local governments that would be ultimately responsible through taxpayer support to pay for cost overruns. Sadly, Virginia airports have seen a 66% decrease in airline passenger traffic and a commensurate reduction in revenues this past year due to the continued impacts of COVID-19. The on-going financial difficulties airports face are difficult to overcome, yet maintaining our highly training workforce has been a continued priority for our airport operators. Considering the financial challenges airports already face during the pandemic, our continued commitment to maintaining our highly skilled and appropriately compensated staff, as well as our inability to generate additional revenue to offset increased costs, we ask that lines 121 through lines 126 of HB2015 be removed and to remove the term “airport worker” from line 137. Virginia’s Airport Operators eagerly await the widespread distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine and we are committed to our continued essential mission of keeping air transportation operational in the Commonwealth and assisting in the economic recovery through sensible and cost-efficient ways. We thank you for your consideration of our amendment request

oppose all marked bills

chris.gordon@dmas.virginia.gov

Virginia's fire fighters and paramedics have been on the front lines of fighting the COVID 19 pandemic, our members have continuously been getting exposed and sick while caring for our residents. For many of our fire fighters and paramedics, the only reward for our public servants has been pay freezes. Many of our jurisdictions received millions in federal aid, and while much of those funds were dedicated to very important fields our first responders in many jurisdictions have not received any form of hazard pay. Praise for our front line workers is hollow without some sort of physical reward for their hard work during these unprecedented time.

On behalf of the frontline, essential Home Care and Public Service workers of SEIU Virginia 512, I write in support of HB 2015 and HB 2016. Working people -- home care providers, grocery employees, nurses, trash collectors, and more -- have been on the front lines of the pandemic, keeping our communites healthy, safe and moving forward. In order to serve the community while keeping themselves and their families safe, all working people need a living wage, paid leave, PPE and more. Delegate Ayala's bills are critical to protecting working families, building a resilient economy, and ensuring that Virginia can come out of the pandemic stronger than before. Thank you.

Speak on behalf of DMAS

The official fiscal impact has yet to be published by the Department of Planning and Budget.

In this time of Covid, essential workers are daily putting themselves on the line providing their fellow citizens essential goods and services. These brave essential workers deserve hazard pay and access to PPE for the extreme and unequal sacrifices they are shouldering. Hazard pay is one way to immediately correct the financial injustice for frontline essential workers who risk their lives without the dignity of wages that can support them. According to Brookings Institute, nearly half (47%) of all frontline essential workers earned less than a living wage despite the fact that they are routinely putting themselves into harm’s way during the pandemic. This legislation addresses these matters of concern to many across the Commonwealth. Thank you for supporting this legislation!

The Roanoke Regional Chamber opposes this legislation. Compelling a broad selection of employers to increase their payroll by 50% during a time of emergency without guarantee that a.) demand for their goods/services remain the same or elevated and b.) without assurances that businesses will be receiving PPP/CARES Act or similar assistance may make a tenuous economic situation worse. Please oppose this bill.

We are writing to inform you that VHHA is opposed to provisions of your legislation HB 2015 requiring hazard pay for health care providers in a state of emergency. While we strongly support our frontline health care workers who serve as the first line of defense in public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic, HB 2015 is far too broad in application and scope and may have unintended consequences. Throughout this pandemic, hospitals enhanced access to mental health and childcare services for staff. Some have provided housing and transportation for staff members exposed to the virus who must self-quarantine to protect their loved ones. Many provide overtime pay (as distinguished from hazard pay) due to staffing shortages, a measure which increases hospital staffing costs amid a period of significant financial stress for health care organizations. We are concerned that HB 2015 will eliminate this flexibility and impose an unbearable financial burden in this and future pandemics. As we have seen from this pandemic, stay at home orders can endure for months. Executive Order 55, Temporary Stay at Home Order Due to Novel Coronavirus went into effect March 30, 2020 and continued in effect until June 10, 2020. Aspects of this order regarding stay at home have remained in place along with other restrictions. HB 2015 is far too broad in its application as it relates to health care providers. Health care providers are certainly essential, but they are not analogous to workers in “essential retail businesses.” Hospital operations include extensive infection control practices and health care providers are trained in standard precautions and appropriate use of personal protective equipment. Unlike retail workers, health care provider compensation takes into account and accommodates for the hazards faced from exposure to communicable or infectious disease and the necessary qualifications required to follow strong infection control practices. In addition, health care providers work in a variety of settings, including some that do not involve direct contact with patients. As we have seen in this pandemic response, many health care providers were able to continue to treat patients from home or other locations outside health care facilities. These caregivers are no less essential under these circumstances, but they are not necessarily exposed to risks that may be faced by those interacting with a patient population or the general public. We are also concerned that HB 2015 will have unintended consequences for health care providers and other essential workers. Recruiting and retaining a high-quality workforce requires offering a flexible and comprehensive set of benefits. Mandating time-and-a-half hourly compensation eliminates this flexibility and causes employers to budget for the possibility of mandated pay increases in determining benefit packages. Furthermore, the requirement to pay time-and-a-half will be accounted for in decisions about whether to shutter operations or reduce operating hours for the duration of the stay at home or shelter in place order, exposing health care providers and other essential workers to furloughs where they would receive no pay at all. For these and other reasons, we cannot support HB 2015.

The Virginia Association for Home Care and Hospice respectfully opposes the bill. Simply put an increase of 50% (225% for hours greater than 40 in a week) in wages for health care providers serving individuals in the Medicaid program is not possible under the current reimbursement mechanism.

On behalf of the private providers of Developmental Disability Waiver Services, we oppose this bill. While the intent is admirable, an increase of 50% (225% for hours greater than 40 in a week) in wages for health care providers in services which are “Medicaid dependent” would be unmanageable. Especially in the circumstances described in lines 145-149 when it can be assumed that staffing requirements may be greater to meet safety protocols and more individuals will be working extra hours to “cover” for individuals who are unable to work, the costs would far exceed the reimbursement for services which is paid be Medicaid and is determined as a matter of policy by the General Assembly. Language which requires a sufficient increase in Medicaid payment in the event of the circumstance described (lines 145-149) should be added in an enactment clause. Jennifer Fidura, Executive Director VNPP, Inc

Thank you to the committee, my name is Shaddai R. from Richmond, Virginia. I am here to encourage you to.. 1. Increase the allocation of tax revenue towards the reinvestment fund from 30% to 70% because anything less than a majority of the revenues is disingenuous to the priorities of the bill. 2. Allocate 50% of all licenses towards Virginia social equity license holders as no other licenses are required to be owned by Virginia residents. 3. Add another tier of license, micro-business licenses, so that smaller applicants can enter with unique integration privileges. 4. Do not add any new crimes nor criminalize another generation of youth because of a fake war on drugs

I am a constituent of the 7th district but I feel it is necessary to work together to protect the younger members of our society and stop the criminalization of the Hispanic and African American communities. Rules must be stated clearly now so we are better prepared to face a future when marijuana is officially legalized in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Please increase the reinvestment from 30% to 70% for new companies and entrepreneurs. Make sure the new market is equitable and accessible to all not just large corporations.

The Virginia Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the Virginia Nurses Association strongly supports Delegate McQuinn's efforts around food access and security to improve the health of all Virginians. We hope the General Assembly will support this legislation. COVID-19 has increased Virginia's food insecurity rate from 9.9% to 13.1%. Numerous studies have demonstrated correlation between food insecurity and poor health outcomes, particularly higher levels of chronic disease such as diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, hepatitis, stroke, cancer, asthma, arthritis, COPN and CKD. Similar programs in other states have demonstrated efficacy for increasing participants' consumption of fruits and vegetables.

Virginia First Cities' 16 older, core city members are supportive of HB2065 and all investments to ensure our cities and citizens have access to thriving, sustainable food options. Delegate McQuinn's bill will help remove barriers and costs of access to healthy foods so that no one has to experience food insecurity.

On behalf of our 57 free clinic members located throughout the Commonwealth, including 11 clinics are also Medicaid, providers, the Virginia Association of Free and Charitable Clinics supports HB2065. Our clinic members serve over 60,000 vulnerable Virginians each year, many of whom suffer from chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease and would benefit from improved access to healthier foods. Our clinics that currently offer food pharmacy programs similar to the Produce Rx Program pilot proposed in HB2065 have experienced positive outcomes from these programs with their patients, including lower blood sugar levels, weight loss, and lower blood pressure readings, and in some cases a decreased level of need for prescription medications to address certain conditions. Based on this positive experience our clinics are having with their food pharmacy efforts, we strongly believe the proposed Produce Rx Program pilot will yield improved health outcomes for the Medicaid patients who participate in it, help to decrease the need for prescription medicines among these same patients, and ultimately reduce the overall cost of their care.

Virginia First Cities' 16 older, core city members are supportive of HB2065 and all investments to ensure our cities and citizen have access to thriving, sustainable food options. Delegate McQuinn's bill will help remove barriers and costs of access to healthy foods so that no one has to experience food insecurity.

The Virginia Education Association (VEA) supports HB2137.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the Virginia Restaurant, Lodging & Travel Association I want to share our thoughts and concerns related to HB2103 and HB2137. At VRLTA we maintain that it is in the best interest of every business to provide the best benefits to their employees that they can afford. This flexibility allows our members to offer benefits that they are financially able to provide. For example: • Almost 98 percent of hotels offer full time employees medical, dental, and vision insurance • Approximately 70 percent of hotels offer tuition reimbursement • Restaurants provide flexible work arrangements that allows individuals to set their own hours, and pick up additional time when they need it • Restaurants provide opportunity—8 in 10 restaurant owners say their first job in the restaurant industry was an entry level position • According to the USDOL Bureau of Labor Statistics, 94 percent of full-time civilian workers in the U.S. have access to some form of paid time off from work whether it's through vacation days, personal leave, sick leave, or family leave. It just isn’t specifically categorized as a “family leave” benefit. Imposing a new payroll tax or mandates on small businesses and those in the hospitality and tourism industries will cause these employers to reduce benefits and wages to offset the costs of this new mandatory paid leave program. It will stifle employment growth and it creates a disincentive to expand as a business. Many hotels and restaurants are small businesses, and according to Pew Research a majority of Americans recognize that forcing small businesses to provide paid leave would be harmful to these employers. According to Pew Research, when asked which benefit or work arrangement is or would be most helpful to them personally, respondents indicated flexibility with scheduling their work hours as the most preferred option. In addition, according to a survey conducted by the Cato Institute: • A majority of Americans (52%) oppose paid leave if it increases their taxes $450 or more a year. • 68% of Americans are opposed to paid leave if employers reduce other benefits (such as reduced health care benefits or fewer vacation days) • 60% of American’s oppose paid leave if they get smaller pay raises. • 62% of Americans oppose paid leave if workers who don’t use it still must pay for it. The Cato Institute survey also found that new mothers say flexible work schedules (22%) are more important than paid parental leave (12%). For these reasons, we are asking you to oppose HB2103 and HB2137 and other proposals mandating employers provide paid leave to employees.

Testimony of Michael Wilson, Executive Assistant to the President, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 400 before the Virginia House Appropriations Compensation and General Government Subcommittee, February 1, 2021 regarding HB 2137 Paid sick leave; employers to provide to certain employees Good morning Chair Tyler and members of the Appropriations Compensation and General Government Subcommittee. I am here today on behalf of the members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), Local 400. We represent over 10,000 members in Virginia who work in retail food, food service, food processing and healthcare. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this afternoon. UFCW Local 400 strongly supports this bill, which would protect the safety and health of Virginia workers and consumers through the current pandemic and beyond. Earned sick leave policies are not only good for working families, but for the customers they serve. This pandemic has exposed many issues that need to be addressed in the way we treat employees who keep us fed and cared for. Our members, on the front lines of this pandemic keeping grocery stores running, processing plants operating, and health care facilities caring for patients have been better off than their non-union colleagues in their industries. Because of gaps in the federal CARES Act and the failure of this legislature to pass an earned sick days law last session, unless you are lucky enough to work for an employer with between 50 and 500 employees, your employer was generous, or have a union that was able to negotiate it, you have not had access to any paid sick leave during this pandemic. Just within our membership in Virginia we have had 1117 people confirmed positive with COVID-19 since this pandemic started. When you add in non-union front-line workers, the number is likely astronomical. It is bad enough during normal times, especially for workers in the food industry, to have to make the choice between coming to work sick, potentially infecting others, or stay home and miss out on badly needed pay. Whether it is to care for yourself or a sick child or loved one, workers should never have to make that choice. It is time for Virginia to join the many other states and jurisdictions that have passed earned sick leave legislation to help secure the health and safety of our work force and our food supply. We strongly support this bill and urge you to pass it without further loopholes, restrictions, or other limiting amendments. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

We support this bill

We support this bill

Regarding HB2137 - Guzman - Paid Sick Days for Essential Workers bill: I urge you to support funds in the budget for HB 2137. To make Paid Sick Days a standard for essential workers in Virginia, we need money for homecare workers and enforcement included in the budget. The bill needs money for two things - enforcement by the Department of Labor and Industries (DOLI) and funds for state-funded homecare workers. If there isn't money in the budget for the homecare workers, they cannot get needed paid sick days. Both Delegate Guzman and Delegate Sickles have put in budget amendments to provide the additional funds.  Virginia is low in the U.S. in terms of workers' rights and quality of life, and not having sick time increases workers' fatigue, stress level, and overall health when they can't take the time they need to rest and recover. Also, as we've all seen recently with COVID-19, when our working community members don't have basic worker rights like sick time, they are faced with staying home to get better if they get sick, or going in to work to keep food on the table and a roof over their family's head and to keep their job, which risks spread of disease in our community.  Please do what is right and support funds in the budget for HB2137 - Delegate Guzman's Paid Sick Days for Essential Workers bill. Thank you for your time, consideration, and work on behalf of all Virginians.

Businesses can't afford more $$$ breaking laws.

Even before the coronavirus crisis, an estimated 41% or 1.2 working adults in Virginia had no paid sick days or paid time off. Paid sick leave would help keep family caregivers from having to make impossible choices between their families’ financial security and their health. More than 80 percent of food industry workers and 75 percent of childcare workers have no paid sick days. More than half of all Norovirus outbreaks can be traced back to sick food service workers who were forced to choose between working sick and losing pay or their job. With a surge in covid-19 cases and threats of an even more transmissible variant, state and local health officials believe by providing paid sick time to workers “we would see a drastic reduction in exposure.” When sick workers are able to stay home, the spread of disease slows and workplaces are both healthier and more productive. Plus, workers recover faster from illness and obtain timely medical care –enabling them to get back to work sooner and holding down health care costs. Providing paid sick days would protect hard working families and level the playing field for small companies. It is no surprise that 83% of Virginia voters say employers should offer paid sick days, including the Virginians for Paid Sick Days Coalition: an alliance of 25 statewide organizations: www.vapaidsickdays.org By establishing a paid sick leave standard for essential workers, it will allow them to maintain economic security and ensure a healthier, more productive workforce in the Commonwealth. Thank you for supporting HB 2137

Dear Members of the Virginia General Assembly: On behalf of the Coalition for a Strong Virginia Economy, our 31 business associations wish to express our position that it is crucial that the General Assembly avoid mandates and increased taxes on small businesses and instead looks for ways to help businesses recover. We respectively ask the committee not to move these bills forward. HB 1785 Ward HB 1977 Askew HB 2037 Tran HB 2040 Hudson HB 2015 Ayala HB 2016 Ayala HB 2103 Reid HB 2137 Guzman HB 2228 Guzman Best Regards, Associated Builders and Contractors of Virginia Associated General Contractors of Virginia Delmarva Chicken Association Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce Harrisonburg – Rockingham Chamber of Commerce Heavy Construction Contractors Association National Federation of Independent Business Northern Virginia Chamber of Commerce Northern Virginia Transportation Business Coalition Precast Concrete Association of Virginia Richmond Area Municipal Contractors Association Shellfish Growers of Virginia Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy Virginia Agribusiness Council Virginia Association of Roofing Professionals Virginia Association for Home Care and Hospice Virginia Automatic Merchandising Association Virginia Contractor Procurement Alliance Virginia Forestry Association Virginia Forest Products Association Virginia Loggers Association Virginia Manufactured Association and Modular Housing Association Virginia Manufacturers Association Virginia Peninsula Chamber of Commerce Virginia Poultry Federation Virginia Retail Federation Virginia Seafood Council Virginia Trucking Association Virginia Veterinary Medical Association Virginia Wholesalers and Distributors Association Virginia Wineries Association

I am in support of bill HB 2137 Paid Sick Leave. There are many benefits for both employers and families. In addition to economic security to families during life changing events; it helps increases employee morale, productivity, and labor force attachment. Studies show there are positive effects on infant and maternal health, reducing rates of infant mortality and stress and depression for mothers. Paid family leave can also promote gender equality if takes into account the importance of both parents’ time with children. Please pass HB 2137!

Businesses can't afford it. The Gov. bankrupted them, they can't afford it and you'll only put more folks out of work. Pity the ones in power have zero clue on how things affect the regular working folks.

For the past few months every time I walk or drive anywhere I see signs saying "Heroes work here" or "we thank our essential workers." The gratitude is sincere, nevertheless, words without action are empty gestures. This legislation is not only about the economic welfare of the our neighbors, it's also a public health issue - if residents cannot receive paid sick leave and stay home when they're ill, we're helping COVID-19 (and other viruses and germs) spread more rapidly among the population (which doesn't make sense, in a pandemic.)

I am here today on behalf of the members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), Local 400. We represent over 10,000 members in Virginia who work in retail food, food service, food processing and healthcare. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this afternoon. UFCW Local 400 strongly supports this bill, which would protect the safety and health of Virginia workers and consumers through the current pandemic and beyond. Earned sick leave policies are not only good for working families, but for the customers they serve. This pandemic has exposed many issues that need to be addressed in the way we treat employees who keep us fed and cared for. Our members, on the front lines of this pandemic keeping grocery stores running, processing plants operating, and health care facilities caring for patients have been better off than their non-union colleagues in their industries. Because of gaps in the federal CARES Act and the failure of this legislature to an earned sick days law last session, unless you are lucky enough to work for an employer with between 50 and 500 employees, or your employer was generous, you have not had access to any paid sick leave during this pandemic. It is bad enough during normal times, especially for workers in the food industry, to have to make the choice between coming to work sick, potentially infecting others, or stay home and miss out on badly needed pay. Whether it is to care for yourself or a sick child or loved one, workers should never have to make that choice. It is time for Virginia to join the many other states and jurisdictions that have passed earned sick leave legislation to help secure the health and safety of our work force and our food supply. We strongly support this bill and urge you to pass it without further loop holes or amendments. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Hello, my name is Kwaku Agyeman. I live in Alexandria and work at National Airport as a wheelchair agent. I am a member of 32BJ SEIU. I support this bill. As a wheelchair agent, I have to guide mostly elderly and disabled travelers all over the airport and even into the planes themselves. I manage their carry-on bags, help them in and out of their seats and am always in close proximity with others. Today I have no paid sick days and I desperately need them. While working at the airport, I once had to delay my cataracts surgery for over a year because I could not afford to take any unpaid days off. There was another day when I wasn’t feeling well enough to go to work, but had to go in anyway in order to pay the bills. I am an essential worker and deserve paid sick days. Please make sure that I am included in paid sick days legislation. Please support this bill.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the Virginia Restaurant, Lodging & Travel Association I would like to take a moment to impart our concerns with HB2016, HB2103, and HB2137 that would require businesses provide paid sick leave, and family and medical leave. We believe the mandates in these measures and payroll tax requirements would create significant hardship for the hospitality and tourism industry. Rather, we are supportive of SB1219 from Senator Favola which would not mandate small businesses like restaurants, campgrounds, and hotels provide paid sick leave and family and medical leave. Instead, it would examine how to create a private market for the sale of family and medical leave insurance plans.

Regarding HB2137 - I urge you to fully support this bill. It is essential to expand sick leave to essential workers who often are not provided with this important benefit. Sick leave is not only a benefit to workers, it's also important for public health. Even in times when we are not in the midst of a pandemic, providing workers with sick leave allows them to stay home when feeling ill, preventing spread of a number of infectious diseases, including during more common high spread periods of seasonal flu. This prevents illnesses from spreading at a workplace and from spreading to others outside the workplace during work in service industries, during travel to work, and other circumstances. Sick leave is a core worker right that we need to further support in Virginia.

HB2016 / HB 2137: We appreciate the generous intent of the patrons, but the question here is not "Is this intent noble?" Rather, it's this: "Do we think Virginians should lose their decision rights on what they can afford to offer employees? Our problem with this legislation, and others like it, is that it assumes that businesses who don't offer paid-sick leave do so because they haven't been told to. In many cases, it's because they can't afford to, especially during the pandemic. For a business who is barely making ends meet, this unfunded mandate on them could literally put them out of business. I know countless business owners who didn't take a paycheck during the pandemic and barely kept their employees jobs alive. And many have told me personally that they pay their employees with the revenue from the day - and sometimes it's not even enough to cover the rate they agreed to and the business loses money trying to save these jobs. Our elected officials should trust Virginians. Virginians are doing the best they can with the best they have. Instead of empathizing with them, this legislation would rob them of their decision rights. For businesses like Amazon, Wal-Mart, Target with millions in daily profit margins, they won't notice the mandate because they can afford to do it or they can afford the political levers to get exempted. Small-businesses are struggling even more to compete with these major online retailers. This doesn't help them. It puts the weight of government mandates on their shoulder while many are already collapsing under the weight of the pandemic. And I urge you to consider whose opportunity to save their business will be taken away? These mandates disproportionately harm businesses with lower profit margins, lower revenue streams, and lower amounts of customers in lower income areas. In short, business owners who earn the least will be the first victims of trying to comply with a mandate that they can't afford. Small business owners who have survived thus far have completely repackaged their stores to comply with COVID-19 mandates, sought out new ways of getting their services to their customers, and suffered unprecedented lockdowns and managed to keep their business alive and their employees with a job. But wealthier businesses in suburbs have been proven to be doing better than businesses and restaurants in more impoverished areas that have managed to make it - in spite of the odds. So instead of trusting them to do what they can and think is best for the business to survive and protect their employees' jobs, this legislation would say "If you can't afford to do everything we have asked and now this - you should not be in business." You won't be telling this to wealthy businesses. You will be telling that to small businesses trying to serve communities where there are the least services and foot traffic. This is not the way. Lawmakers should find a way to work with the decision rights of small business owners - not take them. While the outcome is noble, the means will hurt poor business owners the most. We encourage you to rethink this approach. Thank you.

The economic challenges on small businesses are immense. Adding another financial obligation, no matter how well intended, is not sustainable today. Further, why are the dependents of employees an employers' responsibility? How do employers verify their employees' dependents' conditions? Why aren't employees asked to use all their other PTO before creating a new benefit?

American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) supports HB 2137 introduced by Delegate Guzman. Over the course of the pandemic, essential workers across Virginia, our law-enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical services personnel, health care providers, educators, domestic workers, childcare providers and more have been working hard to keep our communities safe and running. Essential workers deserve paid sick days to care for their own health needs or those of a family member, including going to the doctor, getting tested for COVID-19 or getting vaccinated. As a Union representing public employees with a dedication to making our communities stronger, healthier, and safer, we urge you to support HB 2137, paid sick days for essential workers.

It is essential for us to support families during times of need and this includes allowing them to provide relief and care when a family member is ill. Everyone should be able to do so - extending access only makes sense. Which is why I support this bill. Please vote yes

Virginia NOW - a 50+ year old organization in Virginia, with 3,000 women and men members throughout the Commonwealth - supports both a sick leave program (HB2137) and a paid family and medical leave program (HB2016). The COVID-19 pandemic has made it very clear that families and individuals must have the short-term sick leave and long-term medical leave they need to return to work safely when they are healthy. We harm entire communities by making it difficult for persons who are ill to recover before returning to a job. The program proposed in HB2016 is not a giveaway; funding for the program is provided through premiums assessed to employers and employees beginning in 2023. The amount of a benefit is 80 percent of the employee's average weekly wage, not to exceed 80 percent of the state weekly wage, which amount is required to be adjusted annually to reflect changes in the statewide average weekly wage. The measure caps the duration of paid leave at 12 weeks in any application year. The bill provides self-employed individuals the option of participating in the program. This is the right thing to d o and now is the right time to do it!

The Roanoke Regional Chamber is concerned with the one-size fits all approach that this legislation takes and would respectfully ask the committee to oppose this bill. Allow businesses to enact sick leave programs that work best for the business and its employees.

We are writing on behalf of the more than 1,000 members of the American Association of University Women in 24 branches in the Commonwealth of Virginia to urge your support for Delegate Guzman’s bill, HB 2137, providing paid sick leave for essential workers. AAUW of Virginia is committed to achieving equity for women and girls and creating a secure economic future for all Virginians. We have joined with the Coalition of Virginians for Paid Sick Days to urge you to expand access to paid sick days as a public health imperative. Paid sick days will allow workers to care for their short-term health needs or those of a family member, including going to the doctor or getting tested for COVID-19. The lack of paid sick days creates a crisis for low-wage workers, including women and people of color, who must choose between working while sick or getting paid. If they bring COVID into the workplace, they risk the health of many others. Healthier workers will lead to healthier workplaces and more economically secure families. An overwhelming majority of Virginians support paid sick days. We are aware of the business arguments against such a standard, but paid sick days will actually allow businesses to remain open and will protect the public against COVID-19. It’s time for Virginia to pass a paid sick leave bill. It is good for Virginia’s workers and its businesses. Susan Burk and Denise Murden Co-Vice Presidents for Public Policy AAUW-VA

On behalf of A4A and our member carriers, I am writing to oppose HB 2137 because it fails to account for federal preemption of state paid sick leave laws as applied to airlines, as HB 2103 properly does. In order to bring HB 2137 into compliance with federal law, the proposed bill needs to exempt: • Employees working for air carriers covered by the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”), which governs labor relations in the airline and railroad industry. The U.S. airline industry is one of the most heavily unionized private industries in the nation. As a result of our nationwide Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) under the Railway Labor Act, as well as the personnel policies of our non-union carriers, airlines already provide substantial paid sick leave benefits to their employees. Without increasing employees’ substantive paid sick leave benefits, the proposed bill would: • Make it difficult for airlines to ensure the attendance of employees who are vital to providing the regular operations required by our passengers, and • Interfere with airlines’ multi-state operations, our CBAs and reliability programs, and impose complicated and unnecessary compliance challenges given the unique cross-jurisdictional nature of our operations and workforce. Further information has been sent via email.

Voices for Virginia's Children supports HB2137 to provide paid sick days for essential workers. Paid sick leave is critical for parents and caregivers to be able to stay home and care for sick children and not worry about choosing between losing their income and caring for their children. During the COVID-19 pandemic parents that we surveyed expressed a preference for paid time off to care for children. Many workers in the essential workforce are women and disproportionately women of color. Extending paid sick days to these essential workers provides equitable care for all children.

HB1977 - If someone gets something they've not earned, it should be returned. HB2037- remove (iii) and I'd support. "Belief" is not fact. HB2040 - support HB2103 - if we had the economy before Virginia's rulers ruined our economy, maybe, but this is NOT something to put in when our economy is trashed, the G A is raising minimum wage. Stop killing small business and making our taxes go sky high with legislation that has failed Commieformia to having 1/2 the homeless USA population, and sent people moving out of the state to live.

The Virginia Association for Home Care and Hospice opposes the bill as current Medicaid reimbursement rates would not cover the increased cost of providing paid sick leave.

I am Fred Codding of 10382 Main Street, Fairfax, Virginia 22030. I represent the Iron Workers Employers Association as well as the organizations which are part of the Alliance for Construction Excellence (ACE). Those organizations include Chapters of the National Electrical Contractors, Mechanical Contractors, Sheetmetal Contractors, the American Subcontractors Association and the Iron Workers Employers Association. Those organizations and their members have offices and projects throughout the Commonwealth. Their contractor members, which include minority contractors, work on small and large projects and include many small businesses. Members of the Iron Workers Employers Association itself supply and install reinforcing steel, structural steel, window wall, curtainwall and related products on projects throughout the Commonwealth. Our Members and their construction employees are working on jobs throughout Virginia and the Region. They may be on a job here in Virginia, but tomorrow may be in West Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Tennessee, Kentucky or Delaware. They travel extensively. In addition, their employees move from one contractor to another in relatively short periods of time. This is an integral part of the construction industry. As a result, their pay levels reflect mobility. In addition, construction contractors frequently provide costly pensions, health care, workers compensation insurance and premium time on a number of holidays as well as weekends. In addition, they provide disability insurance. Our contractors also contribute sums per manhour worked for continuing training of apprentice and upgrading programs. The burdens the Bills place on construction contractors increases those they are already having to endure. The Bills substantially increase record-keeping requirements. Numerous other jurisdictions have recognized these concerns. (Maryland is an example.) If the Bills pass, we ask that the concerns of construction be accommodated. We request an exemption for construction. Absent a full exemption, we request an exemption for those with collective bargaining agreements. As noted, this has been done in many other major jurisdictions.

I often hear concerns about the unintended consequences of a bill, and we often see bills filed to "clean up" or "fix" problems or loopholes of previous bills. But there are unintended consequences for inaction as well. 1.2 million workers in Virginia have no paid sick days, and so they must choose between getting paid or taking care of themselves or their families. Workers who go to work sick endanger their coworkers, the public, and the ability of the business to remain open. Children who go to school sick because there is not a caregiver available to stay home with them endanger fellow students, teachers, and staff. We will not get our economy going again until we get this pandemic under control, and we will not get this pandemic under control if sick essential workers are being forced to choose between getting paid and taking care of themselves or others. 83 percent of Virginia registered voters support a policy proposal to provide paid sick days. Please stand with us and support HB2137. Thank you.

Dear Members of the House Appropriations Committee, We are contacting you today in regards to HB2166, Patroned by Delegate Hope. HB2166 amends current processes of involuntary detainment and Mandatory Outpatient Treatment orders. As we voiced during the previous Committee and Subcommittee hearings, VOCAL and our membership of 2,000+ peer/consumers of Virginia's mental health care system, do not support the bill as written. From our perspective, there are two main reasons for our opposition. The first reason relates to HB2166's degradation of personal choice and person-centered care, through the removal of an individual's consent and commitment to the goals within the MOT order. The second reason for our opposition relates to concerns over the preparedness, or lack thereof, of our local communities to support the adherence to MOT orders. Specifically, the inequitable spread of local communities' infrastructure and funding, both of which are critically necessary to support an individual's efforts to comply. We encourage you all to read through the 2019 SAMHSA article "Civil Commitment and the Mental Health Care Continuum" (referenced below) prior to all Committee discussions of HB2166. https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/civil-commitment-continuum-of-care.pdf Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this important matter.

The Virginia Association of Community Services Board (VACSB) has no position on this bill; however, the VACSB would anticipate putting forth a budget request in the 2022 session of the General Assembly in order to mitigate for the additional requirements beginning on line 290 in the introduced bill which reads "The community services board responsible for monitoring the person's progress and adherence to the comprehensive mandatory outpatient treatment plan shall report monthly, in writing, to the court regarding the person's and the community services board's compliance with the provisions of the comprehensive mandatory outpatient treatment plan described in clause (viii) of subsection G of § 37.2-817. " Most often, the MOT coordinator in a CSB is going to be a Certified Prescreening Clinician which means that individual, in addition to his/her duties as an MOT coordinator, is conducting emergency evaluations for the purposes of determining whether a request for a TDO is appropriate for an individual experience a psychiatric crisis. If that clinician is spending time organizing submitting paperwork for every individual on his or her MOT caseload, he or she will not be available to do prescreening evaluations. This means that another clinician will need to be paid overtime for coverage or perhaps, depending on the MOT caseload, an additional prescreening clinician will need to be hired. At a minimum, staffing patterns will need to be examined and supplemented in order to comply with these requirements. The VACSB plans to collect data regarding the impact of the legislation, should it pass, in order to support the budget request in 2022.

VSC NAACP is in full support of HB 2166

Thank you to the committee, my name is Shaddai R. from Richmond, Virginia. I am here to encourage you to.. 1. Increase the allocation of tax revenue towards the reinvestment fund from 30% to 70% because anything less than a majority of the revenues is disingenuous to the priorities of the bill. 2. Allocate 50% of all licenses towards Virginia social equity license holders as no other licenses are required to be owned by Virginia residents. 3. Add another tier of license, micro-business licenses, so that smaller applicants can enter with unique integration privileges. 4. Do not add any new crimes nor criminalize another generation of youth because of a fake war on drugs

I am a constituent of the 7th district but I feel it is necessary to work together to protect the younger members of our society and stop the criminalization of the Hispanic and African American communities. Rules must be stated clearly now so we are better prepared to face a future when marijuana is officially legalized in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Please increase the reinvestment from 30% to 70% for new companies and entrepreneurs. Make sure the new market is equitable and accessible to all not just large corporations.

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

As a Licensed Clinical Psychologist and independent forensic examiner for the court with many years of experience evaluating individuals with intermittent serious mental illness (Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, and Dual Diagnosis Disorder), it is my recommendation that special justices be granted broad judicial discretion to order an MOT order with or without consent under any proposed revision of 37.2-817 under conditions otherwise proposed in the revised Code. "One size does not fit all". Schizophrenia is a disorder that presents in varying ways, to varying degrees, at different stages of the illness and with widely varying prognoses-- usually determined by how early in the disease process effective antipsychotic medication can be prescribed and "adhered to"(John M. Kane, MD, RAISE Research Program). The same point might be made for most SMIs (Major Depression, Bipolar Disorder, etc. ). Psychosis is also commonly a symptom in its acute manifestation that can present initially in many unrelated medical conditions that need to be competently and expertly assessed with rule out. There are many individuals with a history of recurring SMI and presenting to the special justice on a "green warrant" who, after a reasonable initial period of psychiatric stabilization and expert capacity assessment, could benefit from having the legal option to voluntarily consent to a court ordered MOT with periodic review and/or status hearings through the auspices of the CSBs that have the resources to properly implement such "legal clinics". These orograms can be customized according to the needs and resources of the individual and the community. There is something about "answering to a judge" that makes all involved in the proceeding take the whole process more seriously. Many individuals after years of "non-adherence" to treatment and/or failure to obtain appropriate services in the community might recognize that they require and would benefit from voluntary court supervision (particularly those with Dual Diagnoses). Where homelessness or incarceration may be the likely alternative consequence of their actions and choices, this might seem the "lesser of the available evils". Without appropriate judicial prudence, including a "choice" option for the individual whose civil liberty is vitally affected, however, the present incarnation of 37.2-817 may be at risk long-term of going the way of mandatory minimal criminal sentencing and other ill-conceived laws.

I can only support involuntary treatment orders when individuals meet the criteria for involuntary detainment (TDO/ECO criteria). In the current version of the bill, "1.b." the Pre-Authorization Step-down MOT option allows for individuals to be mandated to intensive, outpatient treatment, for up to 6 months, at a time when they no longer meet those criteria. I strongly feel that mandated treatments for individuals that do not currently meet criteria for emergency detainment is a threat to their civil rights. Furthermore, the success of mandatory outpatient treatments are contingent on the local communities' infrastructure (or lack thereof) of available public services. I fear that, while the Patron of the bill's community (Arlington) likely has the available services in place, there are countless communities, rural and/or lower socioeconomic, that simply do not currently have the needed services in place. The absence of these services, in my opinion, render the work on the MOT process significantly less impactful.

As an independent examiner with over 15 years of experience providing independent TDO evaluations for special justices and the courts, I can tell you that safety-- that of the individual with serious mental illness, of family members. and of the community) always comes first in the preparation, execution, and disposition of these civil judicial hearings and cases. In the past, the large majority of the MOT orders have been for "Direct" MOT orders, not "step-down" MOT orders-- whether by advance order of the court or "de novo" MOT hearings and orders after physician approval for discharge. I am concerned that the present House Bill 2166 in its present form will not allow sufficient time under the current statutorily required 72 hour period limit (exclusive of weekends and holidays) in pre-hearing detention to be sufficient for the type of multidisciplinary capacity assessments and judicial deliberations proposed under 37.2-817 et seq. This bill, as proposed in most instances, as it applies at least to "Direct' MOT orders as an alternative to inpatient hospitalization, would allow at most 72 hours for the physician and independent examiner, and others, to accomplish the following: initial risk and capacity assessments, authorized family contacts, authorized medical records releases, initial treatment team reviews and follow-up pre-discharge MOT step-down treatment planning jointly conducted by the hospital and the CSB, and, where applicable, Psychiatric Advance Directive for legal review. Unless the proponents of this bill advocate committing all TDOs for inpatient psychiatric acute hospitalization initially for stabilization, capacity assessment, and extensive case management review, including MOT pre-discharge planning, I would strongly recommend and advocate for a voluntary option for MOT post-discharge planning for those individuals with SMIs who are "at risk" but who are not an imminent danger to self or others. I would also strongly advocate for extending the statutory pre-hearing TDO initial assessment period from 72 to 96 hours. There are many individuals who have been ECO'd or TDO'd by well-meaning family, clinicians, and law enforcement officers "out of an abundance of caution" who are not dangerous but who act or claim to be in order to obtain services that are not immediately available in the community. Often their families are desperate to obtain services. With In in red an extension of the TDO pre-assessment period from 72 to 96 hours, or longer, many of these individuals could be psychiatrically stabilized and diverted to community care safely with or without an MOT order. See Wanchek and Bonnie (2012 Psychiatric Services) for a research study that provide evidence-based findings supporting the cost-effectiveness of such an approach.

I am a social worker by training and a person in recovery from mental health challenges. I believe in the autonomy and choice of individuals to direct and control their recovery process. I recognize that without the investment from the individual, all behavioral health interventions will be destined to fall short. With that said, I disagree with HB2216's removal of the individuals consent/agreement requirement, within the MOT process. The consent of the individual should not be overruled, except in instances where a magistrate has ruled the individual lacks decisional capability. I also stand in opposition to the bill's significant extension of the time period for the mandated, intensive, outpatient, treatment order. The current lifespan of an MOT order lasts 90 days. HB2216 proposes to double that time period to 180 days. Individuals should be treated in the least restrictive settings--this intention of the recent reinvigoration for promoting the use of Mandatory Outpatient Treatments, is one I support. However, the community services and the individual's social supports MUST be in place in order for an MOT to be successful. I cannot speak for all of Virginia, but I can say that I highly doubt that Petersburg, VA has the current infrastructure of community services needed to support individuals working to adhere to MOT orders. Please listen to me and my fellow consumers on the ground and vote "nay" on HB2216. This is a complicated, technical piece of Virginia's Behavioral Healthcare system and a quick fix will not work.

Thank you to the committee, my name is Shaddai R. from Richmond, Virginia. I am here to encourage you to.. 1. Increase the allocation of tax revenue towards the reinvestment fund from 30% to 70% because anything less than a majority of the revenues is disingenuous to the priorities of the bill. 2. Allocate 50% of all licenses towards Virginia social equity license holders as no other licenses are required to be owned by Virginia residents. 3. Add another tier of license, micro-business licenses, so that smaller applicants can enter with unique integration privileges. 4. Do not add any new crimes nor criminalize another generation of youth because of a fake war on drugs

I am a constituent of the 7th district but I feel it is necessary to work together to protect the younger members of our society and stop the criminalization of the Hispanic and African American communities. Rules must be stated clearly now so we are better prepared to face a future when marijuana is officially legalized in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Please increase the reinvestment from 30% to 70% for new companies and entrepreneurs. Make sure the new market is equitable and accessible to all not just large corporations.

As the Chief Operating Officer of Elk Hill, a non-profit that has provided TDT services since 2012, I would like to share some of our experiences with the MCOs and TDT. The MCO interpretations of DMAS TDT regulations create barriers to service with little clinical rationale. Mental health/behavioral interventions provided by the school are no longer considered previous mental health interventions, even when provided by LCSWs or LPCs. Some MCOs require that a child be at risk of out of home placement to qualify for TDT, even if the other two of three criteria for service have been met. Virginia’s focus on keeping children in their home make this an almost impossible criteria to meet. MCOs deny TDT services, recommending lower level services even when those services are unavailable in the child’s community. TDT was designed as an intervention for the most significant behavioral and mental health impairments yet MCOs are now denying children services because they’ve been in service too long. These are children with chronic mental health conditions which are not cured by TDT or other therapeutic intervention. Their conditions are managed through these services, just as diabetes may be managed through insulin. The idea that a health professional would deny a diabetic insulin because “they’ve been taking it too long” is absurd yet that is exactly what the MCOs are doing for children with severe mental health conditions. TDT is often the service that maintains these children in public schools rather than referring them to private day placements. More than 80% of Elk Hill’s initial service request authorizations (SRAs) are initially pended for more clinical information yet in almost every case, the information requested by reviewers was already included. Our clinicians have been told by MCO medical directors that their reviewers don’t have time to read the entire SRA . Our clinicians must then submit the requested information in writing again and the MCO has another three days to respond. MCO reviewers have recently started “bargaining” with units. We may have requested 140 units over a three- month period and the reviewer will offer 100 units, stating that if we don’t accept the 100 units, the request will be denied altogether and the family will have to go through the appeal process. DMAS oversight of the MCOs thus far has been largely ineffective. Between November 2019 and January 2020, my clinicians submitted 12 complaints regarding the MCOs to the established DMAS complaint e-mail with no response from DMAS, beyond an automatic reply receipt. In October 2020, I contacted DMAS acting behavioral health senior program advisor. She requested more data and more complaint forms. We submitted four of those complaint forms on October 13, 2020. To date, we have had one e-mail from an MCO representative who has since not responded to my clinician. Elk Hill spent over $150,000 in private donor funds in FY2019 to subsidize TDT services in the public schools. Our mission is helping children and we did not abandon those children as many of our for-profit counterparts did when the MCOs made the model economically unsustainable. Although we are a non-profit, we cannot sustain loss indefinitely. The reduction of TDT services is not in keeping with Virginia's earlier commitment to provide community based services to children. Respectfully submitted, Laura Easter, PhD, LPC Chief Operating Officer, Elk Hill

Why would you force a vaccine when hyrdroechloraquin and other drugs heal people. CDC says 99.9% of people recover. Why are you using the tool of fear. What is in it for you. It’s being said that covid is just the first part of this bio weapon. The next part will kill those who were diagnosed with it. If you keep this up there won’t be any one to vote. Oh that’s right. Depopulation is part of the plan. You reap what you sow.

Supported Decision Making (SDM) legal agreements should not be limited to ID/DD (Intellectually Disabled/Developmentally Delayed) individuals and their supporters alone. Serious consideration should be given by DBHDS in this bill to legal SDM agreements, negotiated between the Community Service Board (CSB), designated family advocates, and treatment providers, as "designated supporters", and individuals with SMIs (Serious Mental Illnesses, such as Schizophrenia Spectrum, Bipolar Spectrum). This could conceivably be as part of routine outpatient treatment planning and care or as part of the terms of a court-ordered "Mandatory Outpatient Treatment" (MOT) order. Such agreements would typically take the form of Psychiatric Advance Directives (PADs) negotiated by individuals with SMI judged mentally competent, as recommended by a qualified forensic physician or psychiatrist, to have sufficient mental capacity to understand and give informed consent, with support, to a PAD (binding mental health contract with or without Ulysses Clause). See Paul F. Stavis "The Nexum: A Modest Proposal for Self-Guardianship by Contract: A System of Advance Directives and Surrogate Committees-at-Large for the Intermittently Mentally Ill" Journal of Contemporary Health and Law Vol 15-1 for an example. (Proposed to the New York Legislature as a bill in 1999). Such SDM agreements in the form of a freely negotiated PAD could serve as one alternative to full or plenary guardianship orders for persons with SMIs or in transition through "limited guardianship" (in the form of a modified court order under 64.2-2009) in negotiating an SDM PAD agreement with the long-term goal of full restoration of the affected individual's full legal emancipation and civil rights. In a legally contested case, such a court order could be negotiated through legal mediation and entered by the court as a "consent agreement" by the parties.

ABC-VA opposes this bill.

I write in support of HB 2288 (VA. Public Procurement Act; construction contracts, requirement to submit list of subcontractors), legislation designed to limit the irresponsible practice of "bid shopping" on public construction in Virginia. Bid shopping or bid pedaling occurs when a general contractor or project manager discloses the bid price from one subcontractor to another after bids have been submitted in an attempt to obtain a lower unreasonable price. This practice is highly unethical and leads to shoddy work and unsafe construction by incentivizing dangerous corner-cutting. Moreover, it defeats the purpose of the competitive bidding system. It is time to limit, if not end, the practice of bidshopping on public construction in Virginia. I respectfully request the Committee Members to support HB 2288 when it is brought-up for consideration.

We support this bill

We support this bill

Dear Chairman and Committee members, I am in support of HB 2288 as there is a large and long history of Contractors and sub-contractors that have been and are still being hired to do both public and private work that are not qualified and can not perform the work properly required in the Commonwealth of Virginia. We need to have a process that reviews the history and qualifications of contractors being hired in Virginia to protect the residents and the tax revenue being used. There should be no issues with this for contractors and sub-contractors that are being used for especially public work as we all should understand that there are more requirements to perform government work to protect the public citizens in all matters.

I support HB 2288. HB 2288 requires bidders or offerors on contracts for construction of $250,000 or more to submit along with their bid or proposal a list of all subcontractors, regardless of tier, that the bidder or offeror will use on the contract to perform work valued at $50,000 or more. HB 2288 requires such list to include certain information about each contractor. HB 2288 allows the public body to disqualify listed subcontractors. The practice of bid shopping is repugnant, and it must be stopped. Construction professionals are decisively opposed to bid shopping. Bid shopping and bid peddling are unethical and exploitative. This legislation increases transparency in the bidding process substantially; it will encourage and increase the number of responsive and responsible bidders and this will reduce cost associated with shoddy work and schedule delays. It is time for all professional contractors and construction trade associations and the Virginia General Assembly to come together in strident opposition to bid shopping stopping the practice altogether in Virginia, please vote favorably for HB 2288. Lou Spencer Caret, Virginia

I support HB 2288 which revises the Virginia Public Procurement Act pertaining to construction contracts, requiring general contractors to submit a list of subcontractors. HB 2288 requires bidders or offerors on contracts for construction of $250,000 or more to submit along with their bid or proposal a list of all subcontractors, regardless of tier, that the bidder or offeror will use on the contract to perform work valued at $50,000 or more, including labor and materials. HB 2288 requires such list to include certain information about each contractor. HB 2288 allows the public body to disqualify listed subcontractors but requires the public body to notify the bidder or offeror of such disqualification and allow the bidder or offeror reasonable time to find a qualified replacement. HB 2288 provides that any bidder or offeror that does not submit the required list and statements will have its bid or proposal disqualified, and any bidder or offeror that is found to have knowingly provided false information pursuant to this section shall be debarred from contracting with any public body for a period of up to one year. The practice of bid shopping is repugnant, and it must be stopped. Construction professionals are decisively opposed to it bid shopping. Bid shopping and bid peddling are unethical and exploitative. It is time all professional contractor and construction trade associations and the Virginia General Assembly to come together in vociferous opposition to stop bid shopping in Virginia vote favorably for HB 2288. Respectfully Submitted, Tony Solis Leesburg, Virginia

I support HB 2288 which revises the Virginia Public Procurement Act pertaining to construction contracts, requiring general contractors to submit a list of subcontractors. HB 2288 requires bidders or offerors on contracts for construction of $250,000 or more to submit along with their bid or proposal a list of all subcontractors, regardless of tier, that the bidder or offeror will use on the contract to perform work valued at $50,000 or more, including labor and materials. HB 2288 requires such list to include certain information about each contractor. The bill also requires the bidder or offer to submit 1) a statement declaring that the bidder or offeror has reviewed the qualifications and performance history of each subcontractor and found such qualifications and performance history to be sufficient to qualify the subcontractor to perform the subcontract work and 2) a statement indicating that the bidder or offeror has received a written statement from each subcontractor verifying that such subcontractor (a) has not defaulted on any projects within the last three years, (b) has not been suspended or disbarred by any public body within the last three years, and (c) is not currently in bankruptcy. HB 2288 allows the public body to disqualify listed subcontractors but requires the public body to notify the bidder or offeror of such disqualification and allow the bidder or offeror reasonable time to find a qualified replacement. HB 2288 provides that any bidder or offeror that does not submit the required list and statements will have its bid or proposal disqualified, and any bidder or offeror that is found to have knowingly provided false information pursuant to this section shall be debarred from contracting with any public body for a period of up to one year. The practice of bid shopping is repugnant, and it must be stopped. Construction professionals are decisively opposed to it bid shopping. Bid shopping and bid peddling are unethical and exploitative. It is time all professional contractor and construction trade associations and the Virginia General Assembly to come together in vociferous opposition to stop bid shopping in Virginia vote favorably for HB 2288. Lou Spencer Caret, Virginia

The Virginia Association of Community Services Boards (VACSB) strongly supports HB2322 because it recognizes the devastating impact the opioid epidemic has had on Virginia. While the human toll can never be undone, the bill seeks to rectify some of the monetary impact the epidemic has had on localities as well as to put appropriate prevention measures in place and support services going forward for those who have succumbed to the disease of addiction. We believe that the governance structure as proposed in the bill strikes a delicate balance of all of the involved parties and appreciate the work of the Attorney General's Office, which was heavily involved in the drafting of the bill.

Support

The Virginia Recovery Advocacy Project - representing recovery organizations and thousands of individuals throughout the Commonwealth - and The McShin Recovery Resource Foundation - Virginia’s leading accredited, community-based, non-governmental organization (NGO) providing same-day, evidence-based, authentic peer-driven recovery support services - applauds this preemptive effort to ensure funds from current and potential opioid settlements reach the individuals and communities most devastated by the continuing opioid crisis. We write to share our concerns and offer the following improvements: First, the composition of the Board of Directors should reflect the community it serves. We suggest increasing the number of board members from 11 to 15, where five individuals represent the addiction and recovery community, of which at least three shall represent NGOs providing same-day, evidence-based, authentic peer-driven recovery support services. This change recognizes the importance of peer-to-peer recovery in combating the opioid crisis, and gives voice to the individuals directly served. Second, 35% of the Fund must be allocated to established, accredited, NGOs providing same-day, evidence-based, authentic peer-driven recovery support services. While Community Services Boards provide vital access to resources, same-day, NGO service providers, like The McShin Foundation, are fundamental for developing long-term connections to the authentic recovery community. The Virginia Association of Recovery Residences (VARR) and the Council on Accreditation of Peer Recovery Support Services (CAPRSS) are two established accreditations in Virginia with rigorous, evidence-based, national standards of excellence. We applaud you and members of the General Assembly for working to ensure equitable access to recovery from opioid use disorder. We must give voice to the community that the Opioid Abatement Authority will serve, and we must support community-based NGOs providing same-day, evidence-based, authentic peer-driven recovery support services. When we invest in authentic peer recovery, we build strong families, create safer communities, and produce healthier citizens.

I call your attention to the above referenced proposed legislation HB2322 (Establishing an Opioid Abatement Authority} before you in the House General Laws Committee this evening, upon which I commented before the Professions/Occupations and Administrative Process Sub-Committee this morning. From the perspective of an individual with more than 29 years of sustained continuous recovery from Substance Use Disorder (SUD), I support you referring this much needed legislation to the House Appropriations Committee with some additional input. As I stated before the Sub-Committee, this legislation is heartily welcomed; however I would amicably argue that “one representative of the addiction and recovery community” is not enough. Furthermore, I encourage you to look at what Delaware has done with their already enacted legislation along these lines to apportion a sizeable percentage of these anticipated settlement funds to non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) providing lived experience evidence based SUD recovery services – Opioid Impact Fund: See how Delaware will spend Big Pharma payout (delawareonline.com)

I strongly support the legalization of cannabis. Although I would like a separate agency to be set up as a regulatory authority, I ok with the ABC /cannabis serving as a regulator, I do want to stop the process of legalization. Legalization and social equity is important. . Opt in and Opt out is important. We need to incorporate the Cannabis Control Advisory board this is important.

From the perspective of an individual with more than 29 years of sustained continuous recovery from Substance Use Disorder (SUD), this legislation is heartily welcomed, however I would amicably argue that “one representative of the addiction and recovery community” is not enough. Furthermore, I encourage you to look at what Delaware has done with their already enacted legislation along these lines to apportion a sizeable percentage of these anticipated settlement funds to non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) providing lived experience evidence based SUD recovery services – Opioid Impact Fund: See how Delaware will spend Big Pharma payout (delawareonline.com) Thank You!

Virginia REALTORS support this bill as it would lower insurance premiums for individuals across the commonwealth.

UPDATED VAHP COMMENTS: Thank you for the opportunity to submit written comment to HB 2332. Though VAHP supports efforts to stabilize and bring greater affordability to the Individual market, we do not support increasing taxes on consumers in order to accomplish that goal. Just like the former ACA Health Insurer Tax, taxes on health insurers are directly passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. In fact, that is why the ACA Health Insurer Tax was eventually repealed. In doing so, it decreased premiums in the Individual market by 3%. This bill would have a similar, but unfortunately, even broader fiscal impact on health insurer consumers. It requires that Virginians in other markets, like large and small group, pay higher premiums while not receiving any benefit in assuming these higher costs. We do not think that any health insurance consumer would support increasing their premiums, especially for ones that receive no direct benefit. Instead, VAHP continues to advocate for general fund dollars to be used to support a reinsurance program in order to lower health insurance premiums for the very small percentage of those in the Individual market who do not receive federal subsidies (10%). In summary, this bill will 1) increase health insurance premiums on small businesses and large groups with no benefit and 2) will likely trigger a second additional tax (see Fiscal Impact Statement) on the individual market to fund the exchange. Under current law, an individual business can be a group of one in the small group market and most often chooses to do so. Small businesses will not benefit and premiums will go up because the 1% tax would be passed through to the purchaser. Finally, The Biden Administration and Congressional leadership are looking to enhance and expand the ACA premium subsidies in the next Coronavirus Relief package. Potentially eliminating the 400% federal poverty level cap for ACA tax credit eligibility and the percent of income down to 8.5% (currently, 9.8%). If this happens, state-based reinsurance programs may end. Federal action should be monitored closely to determine the impact to Virginia’s health insurance marketplace. We hope the General Assembly chooses to support those unsubsidized in the Individual market through a state-funded reinsurance program. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title38.2/chapter34/section38.2-3431/

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written comment to HB 2332. Though the VAHP support efforts to stabilize and bring greater affordability to the Individual market, we do not support increasing taxes on consumers in order to accomplish that goal. Just like the former ACA Health Insurer Tax, taxes on health insurers are directly passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. In fact, that is why the ACA Health Insurer Tax was eventually repealed. In doing so, it decreased premiums in the Individual market by 3%. This bill would have a similar, but unfortunately, even broader fiscal implication on other health insurer consumers. It requires that Virginians in other markets, like large and small group, to pay higher premiums while not receiving any benefit in assuming these higher costs. We do not think that any health insurance consumer would support increasing their premiums. Instead, VAHP continues to supports general fund dollars to support a reinsurance program in order to lower health insurance premiums for the very small percentage of those in the Individual market who do not receive federal subsidies (10%). In summary, this bill will 1) increase health insurance premiums on small businesses and large groups with no benefit and 2) will likely trigger a second additional tax (see Fiscal Impact Statement) on the individual market to fund the exchange. Under current law, an individual business can be a group of one in the small group market and most often chooses to do so. Small businesses will not benefit and premiums will go up because the 1% tax would be passed through to the purchaser. Finally, The Biden Administration and Congressional leadership are looking to enhance and expand the ACA premium subsidies in the next Coronavirus Relief package. Potentially eliminating the 400% federal poverty level cap for ACA tax credit eligibility and the percent of income down to 8.5% (currently, 9.8%). If this happens, state-based reinsurance programs may end. Federal action should be monitored closely to determine the impact to Virginia’s health insurance marketplace. We hope the General Assembly chooses to support those unsubsidized in the Individual market through a state-funded reinsurance program. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title38.2/chapter34/section38.2-3431/

The Virginia Chapter of the Arthritis Foundation supports HB2332 and heartily thanks Delegate Sickles for bringing it forward. People with arthritis, rheumatic diseases and other disabilities are unduly affected by various insurance limits and HB2332 will help create additional opportunities for them to obtain affordable health coverage and receive the critical medical care they require to control their chronic conditions. Not only will this program reduce the premiums for individual health plans, but we know from other states implementing these programs that their rates fell by ~20%. In Maryland the rates fell 30%. I think this is an outcome we can all strongly support. An expert analysis has concluded that a 1% assessment on Virginia group and individual health plans is sufficient to reduce rates by 15-20%. That is an investment worth making. I urge you to support and pass HB 2332 on behalf of the thousands of Virginians with arthritis, rheumatic diseases and other chronic health conditions. Virginia cannot afford NOT to enact this important legislation. Thank you. Harry L. Gewanter, MD, FAAP, MACR Advocacy Chair Virginia Chapter of the Arthritis Foundation

Dear Chairman Torian and members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to share the view of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) on HB 2332, a bill to establish a reinsurance program for the Virginia commercial health insurance market. The mission of LLS is to cure leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, and myeloma and improve the quality of life for the more than 1.3 million people in the United States living with blood cancer, and their families. An estimated 4,180 Virginians will be diagnosed with a blood cancer this year. To ensure they receive appropriate and timely care, LLS works to guarantee that blood cancer patients have access to meaningful health insurance coverage – that is, coverage that is guaranteed to be available, high quality, affordable and stable, as defined by the LLS Coverage Principles. Patients’ lives depend on it. It is in service to this mission and our principles that LLS offers support for HB 2332. This legislation from Del. Mark Sickles seeks to improve access to affordable coverage for patients and consumers through the establishment of a reinsurance program. Reinsurance programs in other states have shown promising initial results in controlling overall premium growth and, in some cases, reducing premiums. As of 2021, fourteen states have established reinsurance programs. A 2019 analysis of the first seven states to implement reinsurance showed that premiums declined by almost 20 percent on average in just the first year of the program’s implementation. At the federal level, reinsurance has helped to stabilize premiums in a number of health care programs, such as Medicare Part D. Further, a temporary reinsurance fund for the individual market was established under the Affordable Care Act and reduced premiums by an estimated 10 to 14 percent. The 2020 Virginia Market Stability and Reinsurance Work Group Report found that should Virginia adopt a reinsurance program for 2022, total premium reductions range from -10.1 percent to -20.6 percent. Reinsurance has the potential to create a broader and healthier risk pool, preventing insurers from leaving the market and improving choices for consumers. In short, it will contribute to the availability of meaningful insurance coverage in Virginia and, in doing so, protect patients with blood cancers. We are pleased to support HB 2332 and the establishment of the reinsurance program proposed by the legislation and look forward to continuing to work with Virginia policymakers to improve access to affordable, quality health coverage. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important matter. Questions or requests for further information on LLS and our position can be addressed to sarah.balog@lls.org or 678-852-6383. Regards, Sarah Balog

The American Heart Association supports reinsurance. A reinsurance program will reduce premiums in the individual market. Currently, there are 14 states that already have successful reinsurance programs that have reduced premiums by about 20%, on average . Maryland’s rates dropped over 30%. The American Heart Association urges you to support reinsurance, HB 2332. Chelsi Bennett Virginia Government Relations Director American Heart Association

Chairman Torian and Member of the Committee, AARP Virginia supports HB2332, both as an individual organization and as a member of Healthy Markets Virginia. AARP policy supports reinsurance programs to spread the insurance risk more broadly. These mechanisms should be improved and extended in order to strengthen the functioning of the individual and small-group health insurance markets, including exchanges. Policymakers should provide a funding base that is sufficient to bring rates in line with those in the broader market and ensure that all who need to enroll can do so. Subsidies should be provided to make coverage affordable for those with modest incomes. Fourteen states already have successful reinsurance programs that have reduced premiums by about 20%, on average. The issue has already been studied carefully in Virginia and expert analysis shows that a 1% assessment on group and individual plans is enough to support reductions of 15-20% in Virginia. Please vote “yes” on HB2332. Respectfully submitted, Natalie Snider AARP Virginia

The National Multiple Sclerosis Society strongly supports HB 2332, to establish the Commonwealth Health Reinsurance Program. Implementing a state reinsurance program will help stabilize the Marketplace and lower premiums not only for those living with multiple sclerosis (MS) and other chronic conditions, but all Virginians. MS is an unpredictable, often disabling disease of the central nervous system that disrupts the flow of information within the brain and between the brain and body. Symptoms vary from person to person and range from numbness and tingling to walking difficulties, fatigue, dizziness, pain, depression, blindness, and paralysis. The progress, severity, and specific symptoms of MS in anyone person cannot yet be predicted, but advances in research and treatment are leading to better understanding and moving us closer to a world free of MS. Health insurance spreads the risk between people with high- and low-cost health care needs. Without incentives to attract a balance of enrollees, insurance plans with higher-cost enrollees will raise premiums. A reinsurance program would use federal and state dollars to help Marketplace insurers pay the cost of enrollees with greater health needs, such as people living with MS. Reinsurance will help distribute risk and reduce premiums, encouraging health plans to remain in the Marketplace and provide coverage for people with complex health needs. Enacting HB 2332 would lead to lower premium costs up to 20% for unsubsidized families in Virginia. This marks an important step towards achieving health equity in the Commonwealth, as Black and Latinx people whose earnings are too high to qualify for subsidies are overrepresented in the uninsured population. Recent estimates suggest an additional 15,000 people would enroll in Marketplace plans if premiums were lowered. We thank Delegate Sickles for introducing this important bill. The Society enthusiastically support HB 2332, and funding reinsurance through a Health Insurance Assessment of only 1%, lower than the fee previously assessed by the federal HIA that just expired in December. We respectfully urge members to vote YES on this bill. Thank you.

VHHA strongly supports this bill.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on HB 2332 by Delegate Sickles which would establish a Reinsurance program in Virginia which the American Lung Association strongly supports. The American Lung Association believes everyone should have quality and affordable healthcare coverage. A strong, robust state insurance marketplace is essential for people with pre-existing conditions, like lung disease, to obtain coverage that includes all of the treatments and services that they need to stay healthy at a reasonable cost. The American Lung Association in Virginia therefore supports Virginia’s efforts to pursue a reinsurance program as outlined in HB 2332. Reinsurance is an important tool to help stabilize health insurance markets. Reinsurance programs help health insurance companies cover the claims of very high cost enrollees, which in turn helps insurers to keep premiums affordable for individuals buying insurance on the individual market. Lower premiums can also encourage younger, healthier individuals to purchase insurance coverage, strengthening the risk pool of the state’s marketplace. Additionally, a healthier risk pool can help attract new insurance companies to participate in the state’s marketplace, increasing competition and improving choices for consumers in Virginia. This would help patients with asthma, COPD, lung cancer, and other lung diseases obtain affordable, comprehensive coverage. Reinsurance programs have been successfully used to stabilize premiums in a number of healthcare programs, such as Medicare Part D. A temporary reinsurance fund for the individual market was also established under the Affordable Care Act and reduced premiums by an estimated 10 to 14% in its first year. Additionally, a study of seven states that created their own reinsurance programs using Section 1332 waivers found that these states reduced individual market premiums by an average of 19.9% in their first year. A Reinsurance program will reduce premiums in the individual market, which is a goal we all support. Fourteen (14) states already have successful Reinsurance programs that have reduced premiums by about 20%, on average including Maryland whose rates dropped over 30%. The issue has already been studies carefully in Virginia and expert analysis shows that a 1% assessment on group and individual plans is enough to support reductions of 15-20% in Virginia. The time is now! The American Lung Association in Virginia believes House Bill 2332 legislation will help stabilize the individual market in Virginia and protect patients and consumers, and we urge you to support this measure. American Academy of Actuaries, Individual and Small Group Markets Committee. An Evaluation of the Individual Health Insurance Market and Implications of Potential Changes. January 2017. Retrieved from https://www.actuary.org/files/publications/Acad_eval_indiv_mkt_011817.pdf. Avalere. State-Run Reinsurance Programs Reduce ACA Premiums by 19.9% on Average. March 2019. Retrieved from https://avalere.com/press-releases/state-run-reinsurance-programs-reduce-aca-premiums-by-19-9-on-average.

Dear Chair Torian and Members of the Committee: My name is Tierra Henderson, and I am a small business owner in Richmond. As the founder and owner of iFinancial by Tierra, LLC, which I started in 2016, I provide notary and other business services to my clients. I have lived in Richmond my entire life, and after working numerous jobs, I was able to open my own business, which was a dream of mine. As I navigate keeping my business afloat during the pandemic, every dollar matters. That’s why enacting measures like HB 2332, which would establish a reinsurance program in Virginia, is essential to saving small business owners like me money. Reinsurance programs use federal and state funds to help ACA insurers pay the costs of enrollees with the most expensive medical needs. This allows insurers to base their premiums on healthier, less expensive groups of people, effectively reducing premiums for everyone on the ACA individual marketplace. This makes coverage more accessible and could be an important step toward ensuring health equity, especially for the state’s small business owners like me. Reinsurance also will help to stabilize costs in the individual marketplace, where many small business owners, their workers, and the self-employed purchase health insurance. As a result, Black women like me, and other women and minority entrepreneurs, stand to be positively impacted by passing a state reinsurance program. Healthcare is one of the most challenging costs for small business owners, and I know this firsthand. For much of the past few years, I could not afford healthcare for my son and me; however, I finally purchased healthcare through the individual marketplace late last year. While I am happy that my son and I are both covered, it is still an expensive cost and any measure that would help stabilize premiums would allow me to use those extra dollars towards expanding and growing my business. I urge you to vote yes on HB 2332 to ensure the Commonwealth’s small businesses and their employees have affordable, quality healthcare. Thank you, Tierra Henderson Founder iFinancial by Tiera, LLC

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I write in support of Del. Sickles' HB 2332 on behalf of The Impact Project, an advocacy organization working to advance economic security for all Virginians. By establishing a state-based reinsurance program, this bill will make a tremendous impact on the affordability of healthcare in the Commonwealth by reducing the cost of health insurance premiums. While premium costs in the marketplace have stabilized in recent years, the cost of insurance remains out of reach for many Virginians, averaging $644 a month, among the most expensive in the country. This burden is borne especially by those individuals and families earning more than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, who do not receive subsidies to purchase coverage. For context, that amounts to $104,800 for a family of four. The reinsurance program proposed in this bill is an approach already adopted by 14 states, so we can see in real and proven data that there is an immediate and measurable decrease in the cost of insurance premiums - an average of 16.9% across all states in the first year of implementation, which continues to go down after that. Lastly, this issue has been carefully studied over the last two years by the Virginia Market Stability Work Group - made up of industry, government, and consumer advocates, and the proposals in this bill closely mirror their report, which came out in December 2020. We support the Work Group's recommendation that a 1% health insurer assessment be adopted to pay for the state's share of the cost of a reinsurance program. A 1% assessment will provide enough revenue to cover the Commonwealth's entire share of the cost (with more than 80% being taken by the federal government), and will invest the resources required to reduce premiums by 15-20% in Virginia. Of note is that a similar federal assessment just expired on December 31, 2020, meaning that even with a 1% assessment, Virginia plans will be saving millions more than they have been paying in recent years to both state and federal governments. We thank Del. Sickles for his leadership on this issue, and hope you will support the bill itself, and a health insurer assessment.

Thank you to the committee, my name is Shaddai R. from Richmond, Virginia. I am here to encourage you to.. 1. Increase the allocation of tax revenue towards the reinvestment fund from 30% to 70% because anything less than a majority of the revenues is disingenuous to the priorities of the bill. 2. Allocate 50% of all licenses towards Virginia social equity license holders as no other licenses are required to be owned by Virginia residents. 3. Add another tier of license, micro-business licenses, so that smaller applicants can enter with unique integration privileges. 4. Do not add any new crimes nor criminalize another generation of youth because of a fake war on drugs

I am writing to express enthusiastic support for HB 2332, Del. Sickles' bill creating a reinsurance program. Please associate this support with Virginia Hemophilia Foundation, the Hemophilia Association of the Capital Area, the Virginia Diabetes Council, and the Virginia Breast Cancer Foundation.

I am a constituent of the 7th district but I feel it is necessary to work together to protect the younger members of our society and stop the criminalization of the Hispanic and African American communities. Rules must be stated clearly now so we are better prepared to face a future when marijuana is officially legalized in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Please increase the reinvestment from 30% to 70% for new companies and entrepreneurs. Make sure the new market is equitable and accessible to all not just large corporations.

Dear Chair Heretick and Members of the Committee: My name is Tierra Henderson, and I am a small business owner in Richmond. As the founder and owner of iFinancial by Tierra, LLC, which I started in 2016, I provide notary and other business services to my clients. I have lived in Richmond my entire life, and after working numerous jobs, I was able to open my own business, which was a dream of mine. As I navigate keeping my business afloat during the pandemic, every dollar matters. That’s why enacting measures like SB 2332, which would establish a reinsurance program in Virginia, is essential to saving small business owners like me money. Reinsurance programs use federal and state funds to help ACA insurers pay the costs of enrollees with the most expensive medical needs. This allows insurers to base their premiums on healthier, less expensive group of people, effectively reducing premiums for everyone on the ACA individual marketplace. This makes coverage more accessible and could be an important step toward ensuring health equity, especially for the state’s small business owners like me. Reinsurance also will help to stabilize costs in the individual marketplace, where many small business owners, their workers, and the self-employed purchase health insurance. As a result, Black women like me, and other women and minority entrepreneurs, stand to be positively impacted by passing a state reinsurance program. Healthcare is one of the most challenging costs for small business owners, and I know this firsthand. For much of the past few years, I could not afford healthcare for my son and me; however, I finally purchased healthcare through the individual marketplace late last year. While I am happy that my son and I are both covered, it is still an expensive cost and any measure that would help stabilize premiums would allow me to use those extra dollars towards expanding and growing my business. I urge you to vote yes on HB 2332 to ensure the Commonwealth’s small businesses and their employees have affordable, quality healthcare. Thank you, Tierra Henderson Founder iFinancial by Tiera, LLC

Dear Chairwoman Ward, Vice Chair Sullivan, and Members of the Committee: My name is Tierra Henderson, and I am a small business owner in Richmond. As the founder and owner of iFinancial by Tierra, LLC, which I started in 2016, I provide notary and other business services to my clients. I have lived in Richmond my entire life, and after working numerous jobs, I was able to open my own business, which was a dream of mine. As I navigate keeping my business afloat during the pandemic, every dollar matters. That’s why enacting measures like SB 2332, which would establish a reinsurance program in Virginia, is essential to saving small business owners like me money. Reinsurance programs use federal and state funds to help ACA insurers pay the costs of enrollees with the most expensive medical needs. This allows insurers to base their premiums on healthier, less expensive group of people, effectively reducing premiums for everyone on the ACA individual marketplace. This makes coverage more accessible and could be an important step toward ensuring health equity, especially for the state’s small business owners like me. Reinsurance also will help to stabilize costs in the individual marketplace, where many small business owners, their workers, and the self-employed purchase health insurance. As a result, Black women like me, and other women and minority entrepreneurs, stand to be positively impacted by passing a state reinsurance program. Healthcare is one of the most challenging costs for small business owners, and I know this firsthand. For much of the past few years, I could not afford healthcare for my son and me; however, I finally purchased healthcare through the individual marketplace late last year. While I am happy that my son and I are both covered, it is still an expensive cost and any measure that would help stabilize premiums would allow me to use those extra dollars towards expanding and growing my business. I urge you to vote YES on HB 2332 to ensure the Commonwealth’s small businesses and their employees have affordable, quality healthcare. Thank you, Tierra Henderson Founder iFinancial by Tiera, LLC