Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Good morning. It's Tuesday, January 27. It's been a snow filled weekend, cold, all of that. I'm having a real remote winter. We're going to start off this morning talking with Heather Darby, Associate Professor, UVM Extension. A little embarrassed that we haven't had Heather in until now, but everybody's busy. But as we customarily do on Tuesday, we'll just introduce the committee. Yep, Senator Brian Collamore representing the Rutland District.

[Robert Plunkett]: And I'm Robert Plunkett, the Bennington District. Senator Heffernan, Addison County District.

[Sen. Joe Major (Vice Chair)]: Senator Joe Major, Windsor.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Senator Russ Ingalls, Essex Orleans.

[Heather Darby]: Bennington County Assistant.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Heather, very glad to have you in. Always look forward to it. The floor is yours.

[Heather Darby]: Great. Okay. Well, thanks everyone. And yes, I'm sorry I haven't been able to make it in sooner. We've all been busy and lots going on out in the farming community as you folks well know, I'm sure. So, I'm not sure if there's anything in particular that you were interested in hearing about or any updates you were looking to receive on any topics. I'm happy to address those or answer any questions you might have. Otherwise, I can just talk about life in general out here.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I think what I'd like to hear I'd like for the community here, even though it was probably the poorest year that you could ever do a controlled sample or testing, was because of the drought and the early spring showed just bad weather. Maybe some of the comparisons that you're doing, one of them would be the neonicotinoid crop versus not or whatever. And any other side by side comparisons that you are on and anything else that you would think that was important to us Heather? Yeah,

[Heather Darby]: yes, we are just starting, sorry for all this. And Linda, I'll send this to you I get done. So we have continued to do some neonicotinoid research actually quite a bit. And some of that we're doing with New York and Cornell University. And so, I'll talk about some of the projects we're doing and happy to answer questions. Oh, that didn't come in the way I thought it would. It's very small. But okay, so one of the questions that farmers are really interested in and we are as well is, you know, what certain conditions influence the risk of seeing various pests out, you know, out in the field. And the pests in particular right now that we're looking at are pests like seed corn maggot, that's what SCM stands for, wireworm, and white grub. And those are three pests that are being controlled by the neonicotinoid insecticide on the seed. And so, there are a lot of practices that farmers use that they use to grow corn crops and soybeans and other crops here in the state of Vermont that are really common here and aren't necessarily common other places. And when we combine these practices with the weather and the soil types and the conditions we have here in Vermont, we're wondering how it impacts pests like seacorn, maggot, wireworm, and white grub. And so those practices that we're evaluating are tillage versus no tillage. We're looking at manure application with and without tillage. And then we're also looking at cover crops added to the system with and without tillage. And then we're looking at all three of these combined. And I think, you know, you folks have heard quite a bit about different practices farmers are using out in the field to be able to reduce, you know, the impact on water quality. Those include cover cropping for one. They also include minimizing tillage, so trying to reduce tillage. And then on our livestock operations, we have manure and we're looking at practices like injecting manure to be able to again reduce any chance of runoff and negative impact on water quality. So there's been increases in cover crops across the landscape, quite substantial increases, which is great. But we've also seen increases in no tillage. So people converting from tillage practices over to no tillage. So how do all of these impact a farmer's risk of seeing seed corn maggot damage? And so we've been looking at that and I really apologize how small this font is, I can barely see it. But this really big bar to the right represents the probability. Okay? So the probability of a farm seeing seed corn maggot damage if they're using tillage, manure, and cover crops. And so, you can see those three things, those three practices combined together mean that the farmer has a much higher probability of seeing seed damage from seed corn maggot. And you can see in 2025, that probability was over 80%. Now, I just want to be clear that just because it's a high probability of seeing the damage of seeing damage from seed corn maggot, that doesn't necessarily mean there'll be a crop failure. But the chance, so the risk of seeing damage is, as you can see, based on the size of the bar, quite a bit higher when you put those three practices together. And then after that, the probability declines quite a bit depending on what you're doing. And so you can see way to the left, the smaller bars, these are no till systems. So tillage has a significant impact on risk. So farms that are tilling fields in the spring, right, and they're tilling in manure, and then they're also tilling in cover crop. They're making a really nice environment for seed corn maggot. And it seems to be obviously an attractor to that pest. Okay, so right now, and we've seen this a couple years in a row now, it appears that using no tillage does seem to reduce the risk, the probability of seeing damage. Okay, once you start adding tillage to the system, that definitely starts to increase the risk. And then as you're adding more organic matter and tilling the soil, the risk goes up exponentially. And if you think about it, these seed corn maggots, they're flies. They look actually kind of like little house flies to most people. And we know that a fly likes the smell of rotting, right? Garbage or decomposing anything. And that's where it's attracted to lay eggs. And then you get maggots, right? They're the little baby, baby flies. And so when we have this kind of perfect environment, tillage in the spring, manure in the spring in a large kind of cover crop, plow down, we're going to get seed corn maggot and the probability goes way up. So I would say that is a pretty significant finding. And it's holding true over multiple years now. And as you said, 2025 was a tough year. But again, the results are holding true. Last year, the probability of damage for that same practice was about 60%. And this year it was over 80. So you know, that probability of seeing damage may go down year to year, but it's definitely highest when you're combining those three. Again, I really want to be clear here, this does not mean the farm is going to see a crop failure. We didn't see a crop failure here. Actually, we still had good corn yields. And I think that's something we actually really need to continue to evaluate. We are not seeing major reductions in yields, even when we see this risk go way up. And some of that, I believe, is because farmers already use very high corn populations. And so, losing some of that potential yield, if those plants are lost, so let's say you go from 34,000 plants to the acre down to 32,000 plants to the acre, you may not see a yield decline. Because those plants that are left, to some point, have more space, they get more nutrients, more sunlight, more water that's available. And so, we may not actually see a yield decline. So I think, you know, we have a little more work to do there. Now, if a farm was planting at 30,000 seeds per acre and they lost 4,000 plants per acre, in that example, they would likely see a yield decline. Right? So plants will compensate to a point, but understanding, you know, where we start to see those yield declines based on population is a question we we need to answer here. The the other thing I I think we should preface that's really, really important. In science, you know, in research, we're looking at statistical differences, right? At a 95% confidence, right? So, we feel 95% confident that what we're seeing is real. Okay? Now, a farmer, if they get anything with 95% confidence or guarantee, like that's great. But most farmers take much greater risk than that every day. And so our data is very, very conservative as it should be from a scientific perspective. But we have to remember what a farmer sees as a yield difference. It may be different than a scientific point of view. So we also have to be thinking about that as well.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So Heather, on that slide.

[Heather Darby]: So

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: are you seeing any Everything's perfect. Okay, just say everything's perfect. Everything's great. Are you seeing any problems or any differences in yield between no till and till?

[Heather Darby]: We can, yes. Yep.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And what would that be from? More compaction on the till, incorporating the cover crop into the soils at that time? What would cause that difference of yield between, if everything's the same, between tilled and no tilled?

[Heather Darby]: Yeah. So in no till fields, you know, you already mentioned one constraint. So, you know, part of the reason utilizing tillage on a farm is to add, you know, add oxygen to the soil, warm the soil up, possibly break up any compacted layers. And I would say tillage is still predominant in Vermont agriculture, and that's across most farming types, right? So, the majority of vegetable producers use tillage, and I would say that's probably closer to 98, maybe 99%. In corn, people growing corn, whether it's for silage or grain corn, we have a tenth maybe to 15% of the acres that are in no till. So tillage is still extremely prevalent in Vermont. And a lot of that has to do with, you know, wet soils here, heavy soils, cool conditions in the the spring. So it's it's not an easy shift for every farm to go to no till.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: What I'm trying to have is that it's not old habits die hard. There is an advantage. Yeah. Far as the most part, there is an advantage to till versus no till.

[Heather Darby]: There can be. Yes. Absolutely.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay.

[Heather Darby]: And converting from tillage to no tillage, you know, and not seeing yield depression can be a four to six year transition period, depending on the soil. And especially on heavy soils, you will likely need to have tile drainage on those fields to make that practice work. So there are lots of advantages both to the farm and to the environment for no tillage, but it's not a simple transition.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay.

[Heather Darby]: Yeah.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Thank

[Heather Darby]: you. Yes. Okay. So, I'm just gonna skip ahead. So, we did have on farm sites where we were growing an acre of treated corn and an acre of untreated corn at 15 sites throughout Vermont. It was a very tough year, as you mentioned, to get that done and to get really good data from it. I will actually show you some of that in a minute. But one of the things I wanted to show you were the populations of seed corn maggot. So, we put out sticky traps throughout Vermont. You can see the little corn cobs represent the sites where we were monitoring seed corn maggot on farms to look at when, well, if maggots are present, seed corn maggots were tracing the adults. So those are the flies that are emerging. And are they present and when are the peak populations occurring throughout the state? And these are the locations. And then the time that the sticky traps were out. So we were trying to get them out in April. And then we removed them in most locations around July 1. So looking at very early conditions and then into people were still planting corn this year in July, but normally wouldn't be, but looked until July 1. So, you know, the first thing to note in this very busy graph is that there are seed corn maggots everywhere. So they are real pests. They occur throughout the state. They are prevalent. You can see the peaks where we were trapping the most adults. Okay, so that would be the peak flights for that area. And I think most of you know that seed corn maggot, even though that's what it's called, these maggots, these flies are attracted to lots of different hosts, not just corn. And they're actually not even they don't even favor corn. That's not even really what they're after. Okay, so the interesting thing that we saw is that a lot of the peak populations, a lot of the peak flights were basically occurring during peak corn planting time, what would normally be peak corn planting time, which is May, the month of May. So this is what this represents here is the month of May. So the seed corn maggots are emerging. They overwinter basically in other organic matter generally around cornfields, along in buffers, in wooded areas, shrubby areas. They'll overwinter in basically the organic matter that's there. They merge, they fly out, and they're looking for a good place to lay eggs. So when they see those tilled fields with lots of decomposing organic matter, that's where they're headed. And then when the maggots emerge, there's a big juicy piece of seed corn there. Okay. So the peak flights again are during corn planting, depending on where you live. Sometimes the peaks, you know, are in mid May. So this green line here is in Newberry. And that one is exactly on the May 15, which is generally right around the time when most people are trying to plant. And then you can see the peak flights decline in about thirty days later, Right? The whole cycle has completed, and the next flight is out flying around about a month later, roughly. Okay? About three weeks. So, yeah, so I think, you know, generally, no matter where you are in the state, there is a flight of seed corn maggot that's occurring during corn planting season. So avoiding it may be kind of difficult.

[Robert Plunkett]: Did the neonicotinoid seeds, did they help prevent them?

[Heather Darby]: Well, theoretically, right? That's why they're there. They would prevent the maggot from eating the seed. Oh, go ahead.

[Robert Plunkett]: Sorry, sorry, Heather.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Robert Plunkett]: Have we done cornfields that have not had neonicotinoids on them to see if it does more damage.

[Heather Darby]: So I will say those fields are hard to find.

[Robert Plunkett]: Maybe not because

[Heather Darby]: basically all the corn seed has been sold with neonics for the last almost twenty years. So that is a challenge, which is why we started this project last year. That's to go for three years where we're planning untreated corn every year for three years, hoping to sort of get to a point where we have a field that would be free of neonics and we can look at that damage. So in eight fields in 2024, we did this, we went out and put no neonic seed and neonic treated seed. We didn't see any difference in corn populations between the two treatments. In 2025, we did 14 fields on farms in Vermont. And we also had one field at the research farm. So we had 15 fields looking at corn and soybean. And we also did not see any difference in corn populations between neonic treated and neonic untreated for seed corn maggot. But we did see on two farms a difference in wireworm damage between treated and untreated and also grub damage. So those are the other pests controlled by neonics. So I, if we look at the average, right across all these farms, there is no difference. If we look, and this is our goal right now is to figure out where the risk is. Right? It's not to look at 50 farms, average the numbers together and say, there's no risk, there's no point. It's to look at each individual farm and figure out when, if there is an issue and there is risk, where is it making a difference? Okay, that's the goal right now. Because what we're trying to understand is where is the risk and what is it? And would, you know, the agency of ag provide an exemption because of that risk? So, we did see farms that had, like I said, significant amounts of wireworms and grubs, not on the same farms, handfuls actually of grubs, which was really disgusting. And, you know, a large amount of wireworms in the sample areas. So now, I mean, we're just compiling all this data. So now what we're doing is digging into those specific farms and saying, what's the history? What were they doing? Why do they have damage and other farms don't? So, you know, that's really the goal of this work right now. It's not necessarily to you know, it's defined risk. Where is that risk? When would we provide exemption? Right? The law is already in place. NeoMix will be banned. And now it's understanding when they should be used or be given exemptions. And That's what we're trying to figure out. More to come. We're not done with all the data, but that I would say for me was kind of the shocker this year, especially was that there were farms that were experiencing quite significant damage, but it was from wireworms and grubs, not seed corn maggot.

[Sen. Joe Major (Vice Chair)]: So Heather, can I ask you a couple of questions?

[Heather Darby]: Yep.

[Sen. Joe Major (Vice Chair)]: Can I go back to '23 when the law was passed? I remember two of the points that were made as we discussed whether the band NeoNicks were, the availability of them to Vermont farmers, New York and Vermont, as I remember, and we are only three years away now from that 2029 date, don't represent a huge amount of certainly corn seed in the country. There are many bigger states that do that. I don't know where we are in terms of being able to supply farmers with non treated seed. But the other issue, and this is interesting that you bring the results here, was the advocacy of non treated seed. Those were the two things. Can farmers get them? If the non treated seed becomes the only thing they can use, what kind of differences? I'm a little bit surprised as I think you are that the corn maggot, you could argue and probably make a case for little if any difference, but the white grout and the wireworm damage is significantly different between the treated and non treated. That's a long way of getting my question. I don't know whether we've had enough time to do it. You mentioned tilt versus no tilt. It's six years before you could sort of decide whether one, you know, method is better or worse than the other. So first of all, have we had enough time to really take a look at it? Secondly, how available are these seeds gonna be by '29? And thirdly, how efficient are seeds?

[Heather Darby]: Yeah. So I agree with you. Are other options for farmers to treat. There's other seed treatments. We looked at those last year. We looked at them this year. They do work. There's a new option that came out recently as well. So I'm, you know, farmers will have ways to manage these pests. I think you hit the nail on the head. The bigger risk and concern that farmers have is what seed will be available to them.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Heather Darby]: Right? So, even if there's other options to control the pest, right now, the majority of all the seed is being treated with neonics, regardless of if there's other options, right? So if the farmer doesn't have access to, you know, the genetics that are going to work for them, or for our environment, for the state. And I say that in all, like this is a huge concern. We have a very short season relative to everywhere else growing this amount of corn, right? Even New York. And so we're growing varieties that are eighty five day, you know, and we do grow some longer stuff, you know, in the Champlain Valley on better soils. But, you know, farmers are concerned they're not going to have access really to sort of that pool of varieties that they just need to be able to produce corn where they live, like irregardless of, you know, seed treatment. So, I'm actually, I think I'm more worried about that too. They can get seed untreated, but again, we have no idea. We haven't been given any indication that that seed will meet the needs of the Vermont environment and farms here. And that is pretty scary.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Heather, there's no doubt that at some point in time this committee is going to have to make a decision. I don't know when that day is or whatever. I don't even know. Maybe not. Maybe it will all get resolved and maybe the C will apply and maybe another different way or whatever. I'd like this committee to understand, and myself included, I think I understand it. Can you tell us what harmful chemicals would have to go on there to get the farmers back to zero as far as to make sure that these pests are contained or killed or eliminated or whatever. There's got to be a method that would happen with other very harmful chemicals. I would be able to ask without trying to sway the committee one way or the other. It's not my intent. But my own personal opinion would be that more harmful than what is being proposed being done by the nicotoids. Can you spend a minute and talk about what the other options are?

[Heather Darby]: Yeah, there are folks heard this a good deal, I think, during when all the discussion was happening.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: But some of the senators weren't three of the senators weren't here.

[Heather Darby]: Okay. Yeah. I I would say quite important. Yeah. In the past, before there were insecticidal seed treatments, the method to control these insect pests was to add insecticide to a box that was on your planter. Okay? And the farmer did that. They bought product. They put it in the box. Those products, many of them are not available anymore. They've been banned. So they definitely wouldn't be using those because they're not allowed anymore anyway. But that was the past method. And so every farmer putting that in the box, and not everybody used them. I will say that some farmers did, some farmers didn't. And you know, they they were at risk. They those particular chemicals were very, very toxic, they like I said, most most of them are not available anymore. When this option of having the insecticide on the seed became available, it definitely it was a very welcome practice. It was a very small amount of material. The farmer didn't have to, mess around with the chemicals per se. The neonic itself definitely was considered far less toxic. And it was really a welcome practice. Now, that was twenty years ago, and it has been very effective, right? And that was great because it's an effective pesticide. It was easy to use, mammalian toxicity. You know, the issues that have arisen, you know, the primary one people heard about was potential impacts on pollinators. A lot of that data obviously was coming out of the Midwest. And this had been a problem there. That's not something people were making up. Personally, I'm not sure if that same dusting off is what it's called was occurring in Vermont or had ever. I don't know. I hadn't seen that or heard of that. But that was the problem in the Midwest. So these, these were safer than what was being used. So, the new seed treatments, the alternative, I wouldn't say they're new, the alternative treatment, probably the one that most farmers or companies would go to is a diamide. You know, of course, the problem with that is that seed isn't widely treated with it. So it's not readily available like neonicotinoid seed treatment is. The barrier there, I believe, has been the cost. It's a lot more expensive for the company. And then obviously it would be more expensive for the farmer. Again, this is not the industry I work in, but I would assume that is likely why neonics have been used and not diamides, just the expense of it. They are a bit newer on the market as well. So there are options. I wouldn't say better or worse. I do think the toxicity of the diamide may be less, but you'd have to get a toxicologist to talk about that. But it's not widely available, right? It's not what the companies are using. So, you know, it is an option, but it's not an option if it's not available. So, I mean, I think those are the challenges here. Farmers can go back to putting the insecticide through the planter. And you know, what insecticide they use would clearly have to be an approved one. There are some options there. It would go into the farmers fertilize liquid fertilizer tank now, likely not in an insecticide box. They don't even exist on new planters anymore. So, there's a lot to unpack there. You know, it can happen. And there are other options, but again, really the crux of the problem I believe here is accessibility of any of it. And again, making sure our farmers here are able to access corn seed that can grow here.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Heather, I heard something this weekend and I again, I think it's only fair to this committee and that we worked really, really hard on is to work on accurate information. And I don't want to go into anything that is not accurate. I just, know, and I think everything we're hearing here is accurate. But I heard this weekend on a talk show and I'm just trying to, maybe I read it, that the neonicotinoid actually, the small amounts that it does, when the bees do come in contact with it, that they bring it back to the hive and it actually helps to kill the boram mites that have been impacting their hives. Have you heard anything of that, that it could actually be a help or is that somebody else's opinion? Or maybe it hasn't been studied yet.

[Heather Darby]: Yeah, I haven't heard that. You know, is a broad spectrum pesticide. I haven't heard that.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay, thank you.

[Heather Darby]: I will say I have a couple more things to show you. Part of the issue, and I and farmers ask us all the time, this is on the seed, Heather. How how is how is having it on the seed and then putting that seed in the ground, how is that affecting pollinators? Right? That is a very good question. It's not like they're throwing, you know, throwing the neonic out into the air. They're loading their corn planters with the seed, and then they're running the planters, you know, and the seeds going in the ground. So how's it killing bees? Right? And or pollinators, you know, or or other insects. It is an insecticide broad spectrum. So, you know, it's not just there to kill seed corn maggots. So, you know, that's something we have to contend with. So it is absolutely it right to think, you know, the majority of that pesticide is going into the ground and impacting the pests in the ground. Okay? But the issue that has come up is this dusting off, which is dust that is generated by the planter itself. Okay. And some of that dust may contain neonics. The neonics and other material on the seed get worn off. There's some abrasion in the planter and that neonic can get blown out of the planter and moving in to the air. And that's been shown. That was the issue that was identified in the Midwest during planting season. And so one of the issues that was brought up was the fact that farmers will put a fluency agent into the box of seed to help the seed flow out through the planter. Okay? And they commonly use graphite or talc. Okay? Those super common. And what was shown in other research was that it was abrasive. These fluency agents were actually rubbing, the material off the seeds and causing more dust come out of the planter. So we wanted to look at alternatives to graphite and talc as fluency agents. And what we found in our research over here to the left is this product from Bayer, which is an alternative fluency agent. And it seems to be very effective at reducing dust coming out of the planter. And, you know, we've shared this with the Ag Innovation Board. We've shared it with farmers. Just thinking about possibly expanding the use of this Bayer Fluency Agent, if we can get access to it, could substantially reduce the amount of dust coming out of planters. And I think, you know, those are the kinds of risk management pieces that we need to be looking at to help farmers, you know, reduce that potential. So I wanted to make sure you folks heard about that. And again, it's alternative fluency agent. We're trying to figure out how widely available it is. But you can see compared to even the control, which is just the seed, it reduced the dust coming out of the planter quite substantially. And this is the amount of neonic that we were catching coming out of the planter. So I think that's a real positive result that farmers could implement quite quickly.

[Sen. Joe Major (Vice Chair)]: So Heather, is it also not true that most pollinators are not attracted to the corn plant flower? If you could mitigate the dust that's caused from the planter, it would seem like you're severely reducing the likelihood that pollinators would be exposed to neonics.

[Heather Darby]: Would come in contact, yes. Yeah, no, absolutely. To

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: be very clear, Heather, I want the committee to understand, unless there's dust it's highly unlikely that this neonicotinoid is going to make it out of the brown. It's not going to be a residual part of the plant or it's not going to ever make it that high up into the flower. It has to be something that is emitted in the air. It's not going to escape from the soil. Mean, anything's possible, but the science will tell you that it's dust or just a fluke as far as whether that neonicotinoid will make it to a pollinator.

[Heather Darby]: Right. I mean, pesticide itself has to come off of the seed and be getting into the environment. It's not coming, you know, what so it is a systemic pesticide. So it does get taken up into the plant. But by the time the plant is flowering, that is not a risk, right? That's not the risk. The risk is the actual pesticide coating that's on the seed coming off and getting into the environment. Right? So and that can happen, you know, in in different ways. And clearly, of the ways we've seen it happen is it coming out off of the planter. And different planters, that's the other thing we've looked at is, you know, is there a modification we can make to the planter? Some planters really, they don't create any dust. And we've evaluated planters as well. I can show you that data. So some planters emit a lot of dust and some planters emit very, very little dust. So, farmers have the type of planner that they have, but maintaining the planter, it looks like I don't have it handy here, Is really important. Keeping your planner in really good condition. They have these vacuums on them, making sure the vacuum is working properly. All of those things are going to minimize the dust. Older planters that don't have vacuums like old finger pickups, plate planters, if anybody's familiar with those, those emit very, very little dust, if any at all. And so, you know, not every planter even is emitting dust. So, there's a lot of work to do here. Every seed types are different. Seed companies are different. So we're looking at that because those are opportunities to minimize dust off, right? And any of the Neonet getting into the environment.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Heather, we're going to have to move on. I want to thank you. One of the reasons why I always love having you in is that I just feel that we get the science and we appreciate that very, very much. I would ask you of this. I want to have you back in, but I would like it to be a topic that you would pick that's something that we ought to know,

[Sen. Joe Major (Vice Chair)]: we should We

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: will work with Linda. We're going to get a little bit busy here. We're starting to get our bills back in now, but maybe in a month or so we can have you back in on something that you think that we ought to know as a committee moving forward.

[Heather Darby]: Yeah, just one quick, I know you're moving on. We have been doing a lot of work on tile as well. And I know that that's a topic

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: That would be very interested. Yeah, it would be.

[Heather Darby]: So, know, we should-

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I think, I think you've just picked the topic. Okay. Because we're gonna be hearing a lot about that. So, Heather, thank you.

[Heather Darby]: Thanks.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Appreciate it.

[Heather Darby]: Good to see you all.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Good to see you Good to I just need a two minute break and then

[Sen. Joe Major (Vice Chair)]: we'll get going.