Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: We had some conversation about the language and the health department's role in the process as outlined in the bill. And to help advance that discussion, we've invited the department in this morning as well as the attorney general's office. And Todd, you're listed first, I think we invited you first. So why don't we have you come up? And we'll hear what you have to say. Also have joined fiscal office here, Nolan, to walk us through and answer any questions about the fiscal note that he's prepared for this bill. And I will just say right now that our intention is to draft an amendment based on the input we get this morning on the question of who's going to be responsible in the event that there is ever a consumer complaint, who should that complaint be directed to? And then then also the infant formula question. So, Todd, good morning, from the attorney general's office. I don't think it was you that we heard from earlier in this session, this bill. So thank you for jumping in.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont AG’s Office)]: Good morning. Thank you, chair. For the record, Todd Delos, assistant attorney general at the Vermont AG's office. I believe my colleague,

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: I think

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont AG’s Office)]: it was Justin Colbert who might have been here, talked about this earlier in the session. But happy to be here and answer questions. What I have prepared is fairly brief and speaks to what the chair raised. We understand that there were some concerns about where consumer complaints might go under the bill in the language of so have they as introduced in the draft 4.1. We are comfortable taking consumer complaints under section b of the bill. Excuse me. We understand that this bill largely mirrors language in other states around baby food and baby food products, and we're comfortable being in the consumer complaint space. That's certainly an area that we operate in frequently and successfully. While we don't hope for violations of the law, we are more than comfortable acting on alleged violations of the law and using the powers that we have in Consumer Protection Act to move forward with those. The second piece, and I know this will come up for committee discussion, but the attorney general absolutely supports the inclusion of infant formula in the bill, recognizing that there's some debate around exactly when that may arise, when that prohibition may come into effect, and and certainly comfortable with the policy debate that will occur in this body around that. I would recommend almost independent, assuming something comes into play around infant formula, even if it's a springing applicability, that infant formula would be added to subsection f on page five. Even if there is no prohibition active at the time the bill is passed, it would be simpler if infant formula is included in the enforcement provisions so that at such time, you don't need to amend that. But I leave that also up to ledge counsel in terms of their knowledge around that. Beyond all that, I I'm happy to answer questions, but that is certainly how we look at it. And again, I would reiterate that the attorney general feels very strongly about this, that protecting some of the most vulnerable consumers we have in Vermont. And, you know, I don't know how many folks around this table are parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends of people with small children. It's a tough time in life to keep your brain clear, and certainly giving folks the opportunity to see how safe the products they're feeding their children are is of paramount importance.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Nelson, thank you. Thank you. Counsel, how would you

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: and and this part maybe you'll tell me it's best left to alleged counsel on us. But is there a way we could tie this in that it's enacted when other states enact their provisions? Is that a fair assumption to make? Like, if California, Illinois, or or two or more states enact, then we can enact.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont AG’s Office)]: So I would say, yes. It's a question best left to ledge counsel, but I'll also say I we have seen that in other pieces of legislation in the past, that kind of springing provision. We're comfortable defending it if there's a challenge to that, and that's certainly a policy question for this committee to debate and and determine.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. So you you were alluding to section f on page five. This is and I don't know. It may be on our committee page. Patricia, maybe you can post it for today too in case anybody's watching for the first time. But this is draft 4.1. It was drafted on March 13, so last Friday. And that section on page five currently states if a consumer reasonably believes based on information provided on the baby food product, so on the package, that baby food product is being sold in the state in violation of this section, the consumer may report the baby food product to the Department of Health. So you're comfortable with having us change that to the Office of the Attorney General. Yes. And then there is more language. Let me just find it here. Earlier on page three in section c, On request of the commissioner of health, the manufacturer shall provide the results of the tests conducted pursuant to the exception. Comfortable having us change that to the office of the attorney general.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont AG’s Office)]: Absolutely. And my understanding, and I'll leave this to the Department of Health, they're still comfortable being in a consultative role, which will be very helpful to us. We would take a position that a violation of the Consumer Protection Act already affords us the opportunity to ask for any, not just test results, but a much broader swath of information. And I think, you know, that could certainly say on some level, it could be cut completely, but understandable if if the committee wants to keep that. We would just wanna reiterate that the powers afforded us or cross referenced in section g on page five already grant us that authority, and we could we would push even for more. You know, we could get information on not just product testing, but product production, ingredients, a whole host of safety measures if that seemed germane to the investigation for violation.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Represent thank you. Representative Lipsky. Councilors, thank you. When we twenty

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: four hours ago, it was a question of they require adding staffing, which would add to the fiscal note and consideration. The attorney general's office adequately staffed. I'm late to You know, maybe one complaint a year or

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I mean, one We don't know.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont AG’s Office)]: That's exactly what I was going to say, Ruth Hardy. I feel like that's two questions, Ruth Lipsky. So I'll answer the second one first because it's probably the one that matters. We're comfortable taking this work on with the caveat that we may come back next year and say, and especially if infant formula were to be added and it was a a new area regulation in the country, even in in concert with sister states, that could be an area where we saw more complaints. You know, we won't know till we see it, but we're comfortable taking it on now coming back and saying I mean, I think we all hope it will be one and not 500. I think we all hope that and and believe that the regulated community is gonna be responsive to legislation and follow the law. And that's certainly we operate under compliance and complaint driven system. And so we look forward to not getting a lot of complaints. And I will say and it is almost direct quote from the attorney general on this. She's more than happy to sue people.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Sure. Yeah. She goes to be there anyway. Thank you.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Bartholomew. You mentioned earlier about consulting with the Department of Health, are they agency a department? Don't

[Speaker 0]: know. Department.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Department of Health. That could happen at normal course events. Does it need to be specified in statute?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont AG’s Office)]: I don't believe so. And we certainly have a we have assistant attorneys general who advise the Department of Health on a day to day basis. So we already have a a close connection with them, and I'm not concerned about our ability to continue with.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So we don't need to worry about that.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont AG’s Office)]: I don't believe so.

[Speaker 0]: Any other questions? I think the questions have covered all the questions that I had. So thank you for coming in, and please thank the Attorney General for her willingness to step in here. Thank you. You're welcome to stay, but I'm sure given- I'll

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: take as

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General, Vermont AG’s Office)]: long as

[Speaker 0]: I can. So I think maybe Mollie more else that he needs to be before too long, so maybe we can have Mollie from during fiscal come up. I heard from Nolan yesterday, and I'll let Nolan walk through how he got involved. And then there's a fiscal note that he's prepared, drafted, that will be part of the record, could be asked about this afternoon on the floor. So I wanted to be sure that we knew what was in that fiscal note and had a chance to ask whether or not there's any amendment, there's still a fiscal note because the bill is the bill. I got that right? Yep. Great.

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: For the record, I'm Noel Langwell. I'm at the joint fiscal office. It's hard to follow a man in a bow tie, but I'll try. So come on, I'm trying to listen to people. People. I haven't testified in ag in about fifteen years, so that's exciting for me. Thank you for finally finding an excuse to bring the healthcare guy in. So a lot of times when bills pass like this one, sometimes there's unintended fiscal impacts, right? And so it was brought to my attention that the work that was in here, the way it was drafted, even though the attorney general has responsible for enforcement, it puts responsibilities on the health department for assessing those things. And so they approached me and said, well, we have some costs. We don't have capacity. We would have to hire an environmental inspector, investigator that comes with the cost of wages, benefits, and other costs that are associated. The fiscal note puts up says it could be as much as $185,000 That's the number that was given to me by the health department. I haven't verified it, but usually a position at that level has a decent salary. Then if there are full benefits and if they have a family of four, they might be paying the full healthcare benefit. And then you also have the cost of like finding a cubicle space, computers, etcetera. So there are costs associated when you bring a position in. So whether that's the number or not, that's sort of as much as so. And usually a lot of times when the health department does things, there's fees associated. So this bill doesn't have any appropriations or any fees. So that's pretty much what the fiscal note sort of flags. So I will let the health department talk more about what they think those costs are. Now, that's just the underlying bill. If you change and if you move things around and just put sole responsibility on the attorney general, then the fiscal note will adjust and say pretty much what Todd said, which is that they feel they can do it within, they're happy to take it on, they could do it within their existing budget. If they think there are additional costs, they will come back to legislature and budget adjustable around the budget.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, Representative Basil.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah, so I mean, I guess as I understand it, this has actually played out relatively smoothly in the states that already already made changes about baby food. And so we're not expecting there are gonna be a bunch of extra expenses. Like in Virginia, they didn't have to add any extra staff. They just were a few complaints. I mean, if there were, I don't know. I haven't heard that. But I know that they were able to manage what they had with the staff that they had. But I guess I'm just wondering in terms of the way this would play out then, if the if the primary concerns, if somebody has a concern are going to the attorney general's office and the attorney general's office might need to check like, oh, we got a complaint that. The baby food isn't labeled, they wouldn't need to that wouldn't need to go to you. The only time they would need to probably go to you would be for something really serious like.

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Did you think the health department? So this is a health department question. I work for you.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Okay, you're just about money. Okay, all right.

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: I work for the legislature, but yes.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: All right, well, I'm just thinking like it's- They're hearing the question,

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: You can keep asking me because Right, they hear

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: right. I mean, I just, okay, I'll wait for the health.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, so sorry, I didn't make that clear. Nolan, he works Yeah, for the health

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: so I work for legislature. I do health insurance services

[Speaker 0]: interviews for-

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Got it. Okay, I'll save my question.

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: No, it was a good question. Sorry, I was

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: just throwing- That's right. That's okay.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Representative Bartholomew. Are you able to determine how this would impact, has impacted other states that have enacted it?

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: I think the health department has actually looked into this too. So I'm gonna defer to them on that as well.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: In terms of your calculations, seem to be just putting out a number based on what the department's telling you.

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Well, question becomes just because another state didn't have cost, it might be because they might've had capacity, right? They might have a larger staff that has capacity to do that work. And for what I'm hearing from the health department, they don't currently have that capacity. So it has to do with where you're starting.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: So to your point, oftentimes I have to rely on the agencies and departments to tell me those costs. It's not like I don't push back. Yes, she's laughing because I push back a lot.

[Speaker 0]: Can you get an illustration of you've pushed back. I'm working

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: on another bill. I won't say which bill it was. And I don't remember if was your bill or not. I think it was where there was a cost for something and they said it was gonna be $2,500,000 And I said, Well, that's not what the bill says. The bill's saying this. And they go, Oh yeah, you're right. So it's often a conversation. They're saying, Well, this is how we interpret the bill. And then I read the bill and I say, I'm interpreting it this way. And then we can come to a space where you can be like, I see your point, you see my point, but don't just carte blanche assume that whatever the agency tells me is the cost. We vet it. In this particular case, they said to me, We don't have the staffing. We need one additional position. And to me, that does not seem unreasonable.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Any other questions for the joint fiscal office and the fiscal note? So Richard, you in your bill report may want to point out that there is a fiscal note. We could talk about that. If somebody asked their fiscal note, which might happen, we sometimes hear that question on the floor, Then you'll need to at least be prepared to say yes and explain what's there and get into the discussion that we had, which is going to be followed by more discussion now. I just wanted to make Yeah, that there may be. Yeah. Well, there will be a fiscal note. That fiscal note is there because the bill is still going to be there regardless of how we amend it.

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: For the underlying bill, for the underlying bill that you passed. So it might not be the bill that you eventually amend, but And I don't know if that's posted on your website or not.

[Speaker 0]: Does our committee assistant have that? I don't know whether you sent it. Oh, I sent it to you. Yeah. I think maybe she was copied, but

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Well, we can make sure.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, if you could send it to Patricia, yeah.

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: What's the last name?

[Speaker 0]: Ready, r u v d y? Yeah. Okay, Patricia, will you be on the lookout for a fiscal note from Nolan?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yes, I will.

[Speaker 0]: And it goes with this bill.

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: I will send it to her. It's moved

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: by. Yeah. Maybe. If

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: there's a fiscal note, does that make it go to housing wise ways and means?

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: That depends. It depends on the clerk. So the clerk will read the bill and sometimes they might not know. If there was an appropriation of the bill, they would absolutely go to appropriations.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: If

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: there's no appropriation of bill, sometimes the clerk in there, how they interpret things may not necessarily notice or see that it actually had

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: a cause,

[Speaker 0]: unless we flag it. This bill is on the second reading today. So to this point, it hasn't been flagged. Correct. Could that still happen here? Depends on Bennington. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you, Nolan. Thank you for your time. Thank

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: you. I look forward to being invited back again.

[Speaker 0]: Well, we'll see you in fifteen years. Sheila, do want to join us?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Good Good morning.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you for coming in. I don't think you haven't been in this room for fifteen years either.

[Sheila Livingston (Advisor to the Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: That's correct. So that's correct. I'm Sheila Livingston. I am the advisor to the commissioner at the health department. Like Nolan, I don't think I've been in here a very long time. Unlike Nolan, I have no problem following men in bow ties. First of all, I just wanted to reiterate, I know Deputy Commissioner Julia Bell spoke with you already on this bill. We support the concept of protecting infants from heavy metals. That is definitely you heard from her on the public health implications of people, especially young agents, consuming dangerous chemicals. The reason that we are asking for this change, there's actually a number of different places in statute where we work very collaboratively, as Todd mentioned, with the attorney general's office on chemicals and consumer products. So PFAS in consumer products, PFAS in firefighting equipment, and chemicals on food packaging. So sort of more similar to this, where it's not a scenario where we're going out and testing or investigating. To your point, it is more like, is that labeled? Is it not labeled? It's not a laboratory project. That said, we do consult with the attorney general's office. I do not think we need specific language to do that. We will continue to do that. We work very collaboratively with them. And if something were to arise where they had questions that were more health or scientifically based, we would work with them on that. The reason that we would need staffing if we were to take on sort of the consumer protection investigation part of this is that's not a role that we usually play in this particular space. I think last time around, somebody brought up our lead program. And so with lead, we have a licensing program. We, as Mollie said, collect fees. We are funded and staffed to do that in a licensing capacity, which is not what this is here. This is, again, consumer protection based. So I want to be really clear, not opposing the concept, just this, we would either be having to stand up a whole kind of like shadow system to the AAG, or we would be really just a middleman if we weren't doing that. And that doesn't make a ton of sense. And it's not how we do these other consumer protection and chemical programs in Vermont. So that's the reason for the ask. And I wanna appreciate Todd's testimony too and his willingness to adjust.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Great. Richard Nelson. So

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: are you asking in advance of anticipating enough work to keep a person busy full time, or are you just throwing out a flag saying we may have to come back if we find out we get a whole bunch of phone calls on this. Because if we put a fiscal note on this for a 100 and let's just throw a number in the middle, a hundred and thirty a hundred and forty thousand dollars for a full time person, and they have nothing to do. There if there's no complaints or two complaints a year, how do we justify that expense to the taxpayers in the state of Vermont?

[Sheila Livingston (Advisor to the Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: It's a great question. So I would explain how we would fund it. We wouldn't be asking for a position number. We would be asking for funding for positions. At the health department, many of our positions are federally funded. So people actually will bill their time to specific codes. We couldn't bill an inspector's time necessarily to this code or to a federal code if they were doing this work. And so we would need the funding in order to do that. So it wouldn't be a whole human, but we would need funding in order to bill people's time, too. And so that's part one of the answer. Part two is, I have not had a ton of luck saying we can do the work without people and then coming back and saying it was more work and we need more funding for or more people. We often don't get that retroactively. And so I hear you, but I have not had luck in that in the past.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: You haven't worked with this committee.

[Sheila Livingston (Advisor to the Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: That's true. That's true. It's normally it's the appropriations that where that hits the

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Oh, you're saying that if you're not looking for a full time person, you're anticipating a point two five or point.

[Sheila Livingston (Advisor to the Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: We would use the funding for we would ask for full time because we don't full time amount of money, like Nolan said, and we would bill against that probably from multiple different people. But again, we don't know what this would look like, and we don't necessarily run a program like this. Like I said, for all of those other places where we have laws like this in Vermont that protect consumers from dangerous chemicals, they are almost always being enforced by the attorney general's office. So it'd be a little bit of a new space for us. So part of it's also the unknown.

[Speaker 0]: Well, let's go to representative Basland.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: So when we had the original testimony from the Department of Health, we had the Department of Health as the primary recipient of the concerns. We're now talking about changing that to be in the attorney general's office, so they're gonna handle almost everything. Occasionally, things may come up where they need to consult with us. But you know what? Right now, that's also true. If I were a mom right now and I had a baby and I was concerned about infant formula, a message might eventually come to you if I persisted enough with the AG. So, the Department of Health has to deal with this issue of heavy metals in formula one way or the other if people are concerned. We're trying to legislatively make it so that our parents are gonna be educated. Our manufacturers are gonna amend their ways as they've done in other states with baby food, and we can move forward. And it seems like that doesn't require the way that if we're gonna make this shift to the AG's office. It seems like this would be something the Department of Health would be able to support without saying you need an extra position because honestly, it's not going to impact you that much. And if we decide, wow,

[Sheila Livingston (Advisor to the Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: we need I totally agree with you. So if you guys move it back to whatever the previous draft was

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yep.

[Sheila Livingston (Advisor to the Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: Where it's going the complaints are going to They them fully support it. Then we do not need more people. We can we will continue to consult with the EEG like we or with the EEG's office like we do with these other chemical programs, and we're fine. We don't need Yeah, yeah, Okay,

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: all right.

[Sheila Livingston (Advisor to the Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: Sorry, make that clear.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Okay, we don't need the joint fiscal note because that position we don't need, because you're just consulting about health issues as you would when any health issue passes. You got it, awesome. Okay, I just wanted to make that clear.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, so I think that we don't need it in the sense that we're hoping to have the bill amended. In the meantime, the bill has not been amended. There is a fiscal note. The fiscal note doesn't go away just because we think that we're going to try and do something else with an amendment.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: So we'll have to report about it, but also explain what the circumstances are.

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: We'll have to

[Speaker 0]: be prepared to report about it. Yeah. But arguably, you might bring amendment to this bill on the floor and it might not succeed, and then we're back to the original bill. Right.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Oh. So the AG part is gonna be in the amendment as well.

[Speaker 0]: Because the bill passed, we passed that on Friday so that we could get it out of committee before crossover, recognizing that there was still some work to do. And now it turns out there was even more work to do. So we're hoping to amend that here. So process wise, that's where we are. Chair, can

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: we take a straw poll on this replacing the Department of Health with the Attorney General's Office?

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I don't

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Or the reporters benefit?

[Speaker 0]: Yes, yeah, once we have it in front of us, yeah, yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Prior to this, yes, yeah. Thank you. Yeah,

[Speaker 0]: for sure. And we might even, yeah, chair, it'll depend on alleged counsel's ability to draft something and get it into the clerk's office, whether we have an amendment today or not. So yeah.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Representative Bartholomew. From where I'm sitting, it seems like we have a clear path forward. And in terms of the fiscal note, yes, it's there. And as the bill passed, we passed it at a committee, it's relevant. But if it comes up, all we have to do is this amendment, assuming the body accepts it, the fiscal note is no longer an issue.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Sometimes you'll hear when somebody is presenting a bill, they'll say there is an amendment coming where this will be addressed. So we can work that into report.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I appreciate.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Or I might have a new fiscal note that's a good fiscal impact,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: which is

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: what I might do in this case. Great. In this case, it's the same thing. Thank you. Thanks, Barry.

[Speaker 0]: All right, any other questions? I appreciate everyone's time here. I think that largely we were all more or less aligned in the first place, there may have just been a couple of questions about who exactly is doing what. And I'm glad we had this opportunity to come back in and try and clarify things, but we appreciate the department's support. I believe that Ledge Council will draft something as quickly as they can. We'll take a break for the moment and just maybe work on getting that done, committee members who are doing an amendment, and then we'll reconvene when we have more information.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thanks for having me.

[Nolan Langweil (Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: We're gonna take

[Speaker 0]: a break, but we will come back and we'll have more testimony.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Okay, that

[Speaker 0]: is