Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Good morning, it's Wednesday, February 25. We are going to spend some time this morning on our miscellaneous bill S-three 23. We're looking at section six, accessory on farm structure permits. Senator Major, I just want to give some credit to Senator Major. He's been an advocate for this section last year and this year. He put together the list of who we're going talk with today. There will be times where I'll be looking for him for some guidance as the committee will as well. This started out last year with some simplicity we thought as far as helping farmers diverse in a very complicated world. So we're looking forward to today's testimony. And who wants to lead off? Joe Major, do you know?

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Joseph, are you ready?

[Joseph Morell (Eastman Farm; Feast and Field Collective)]: I can be.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Yes. That'd be great. And I I appreciate you, coming and testifying on short notice.

[Joseph Morell (Eastman Farm; Feast and Field Collective)]: Definitely. I I appreciate it as well. Thank you, senator Ingalls and and Major for hearing me. So although you could just

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: I'm sorry. And I I kinda just do this, Anthony. If you can just, for the for the record, say who you are.

[Joseph Morell (Eastman Farm; Feast and Field Collective)]: Okay. So I'm I'm Joseph Morell. I operate Eastman Farm in Barnard, Vermont. I'm also part of a, a collective, Feast and Field Collective, that puts on, you know, the feast and field every summer as a as a way of marketing and promoting our our farm products. I was I testified last year about structures. Although reading this bill or this amendment, it definitely has a slightly different focus than we were talking about last year. I I am really I'm I'm curious why why the 50% is being kind of downgraded and and pushed aside and this other number, which seems arbitrary, is is plunked in there. I I think there's a somewhat of a concern here. We as farm operators, processors, and people who have thought creatively about how to share land and how to promote farming in Vermont, I think the 50% rule has been invaluable as our kind of guiding star in everything that we have done. And I think in general, just in reading this amendment, I'm somewhat skeptical of brushing that aside. I mean, I could easily see a situation where you know, a farm is processing, let's say, 600 worth of food. If $303,100,001 dollar came from the farm, but $299.99 is coming from, you know, other ingredients that are being added in, essentially, this bill would say there's something wrong there. And I think in that situation, would say there was nothing wrong there, because I think as long as a farm is sticking to that over 51% of food that are produced on the farm, I think farmers can be creative with that. They could make that work. And I think that's ultimately the easiest metric for everyone to look at.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: You don't get away. I'm sorry. No. No. No. No. You go ahead. So I'm wondering whether we could do it either or. Right. That's where I was going with it, Joseph, as well.

[Joseph Morell (Eastman Farm; Feast and Field Collective)]: I mean, the either or then, again, I question whether the ultimate intent then is to limit the prosperity of the farmer here.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I I think, you know, I I see it as and we have Emma Schuldeis that wants to say Emma, go ahead.

[Emma Schuldeis (Vermont Dairy Producers Alliance; Little Village Enterprises)]: Emma Schuldeis, on behalf of Vermont Dairy Producers Alliance and Little Village Enterprises, we originally, the 250,000 was very arbitrary and we're open to a different number. The thought was to lower the number to help people who are donating and bringing in from other farms. I think we've heard this a lot. I think it's doing the 50% or this number is going to capture more in the end.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: That's what I was thinking. It's it would capture more than just it wouldn't limit. Correct. Would it would broaden That was our hope. More than anything else. That's how I interpret it. Amazing how all three people did the same thing. Thank you.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So I think, yeah, I like that discussion that just happened, Joseph. Did that change your opinion on anything like that? That we're not trying to penalize in any way, shape, or form? We're just trying to bring in more people. Does that do you see it that way or

[Joseph Morell (Eastman Farm; Feast and Field Collective)]: Yeah. You know, I I think I think ultimately, our our, like I said, our guiding ethos holding to that 51%, I think part of what we're part of the world that we're looking at too is, you know, we we don't want to we don't want to give all, you know, a broad stroke for others to to to essentially greenwash what they're doing. If that's not the intention here and that that's just to create accessibility, then I I think that an either or I think would be fine. Really just feel like keeping the language consistently throughout of the 51%, I think is really important.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Joseph, you just brought up a really good point and I'm not asking you to throw anyone under the bus, but explain to us, because you're in this, you're living this, explain to us where your guys' rub would be as far as we're trying to do this, but we see the threat of other people trying to game this system into something different. Can you explain that a little bit for us so that we could totally understand? You know, because you made you kinda made that comment a little bit about people doing something a little different. Help us with that.

[Joseph Morell (Eastman Farm; Feast and Field Collective)]: Well, mean, I guess I question like, let's say, let's say if a farm, you know, had a product that was majority off farm sourced, know, too many ingredients were coming off farm, but some of it was coming from the farm. For them to use that use that kind of business model as an excuse to then construct a processing building and get further down the road of processing without having without being able to put 51% of their product through that building. I I think that that's where it opens it up to folks that might be, you know.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So you're talking almost like a commercial commercial farm stand or something like that that starts to import product and

[Joseph Morell (Eastman Farm; Feast and Field Collective)]: Well, I mean, I think I think that the I I think that the the legislation that has passed already gives farm stores the ability to sell more product from other farms than from their farm. I think that, you know, ultimately I feel like building a processing building and that kind of construction is pretty weighty and pretty important. And I don't think we want to give that permission just to anybody willy nilly with a great idea that's going to throw in a little bit of their farm product into the mix. So I just think that that's where it gets a little strange. I think in the context of a store, yeah, okay. So you're bringing in other farm products. I can see that many farms only produce one or two products. And so having a farm store with an array of products is gonna help attract people. You know, we personally belong to a collective that produces a bunch of different products. So we're able to do a CSA, we're able to have a restaurant experience, we're able to have a bunch of different experiences where overwhelmingly the products are coming from our collective. So I think a store is very different and then actually being able to break ground on something without having a business model that that shows that, you know, over 51% is coming from that farm.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: That was helpful. I appreciate that very much. Joseph, what else?

[Joseph Morell (Eastman Farm; Feast and Field Collective)]: I mean, you know, obviously still, you know, working through the issue that we had last year. We're still, you know, we're still trying to seek justice in that case, and we will continue to do so. I don't really have any further comment on this particular section.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. Good. Committee. Senator Bennington. Thanks,

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Joseph. Appreciate it.

[Joseph Morell (Eastman Farm; Feast and Field Collective)]: Thank you.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Your events as well. They're very cool. Appreciate it. Jenny, did you want to come up and and talk?

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: Sure. Actually, I'm Brooke.

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: I'm sorry, Brooke. No. No. That's okay. I think we have Jenny online. There she is. That's our general counselor. Okay. She's great ski accountant. Yeah. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Brooke Dingle Dean. I was a lawyer for thirty years here in Vermont doing land use litigation. And I have the honor of being selected for the way of use review board. We have been working for the past year nonstop trying to implement all of the tasks of the HACCP-one 181. Accessory act farm business was a report that we had asked for delays in tier two reporting, but the legislature had wanted us to fulfill that obligation. With all of the other reports and studies that we had been involved in and regional planning, We asked for a delay in that because we felt like we really could not give it the attention that it deserved. This board is very supportive of our farms. Very concerned about the amount of farms that we've lost and our primate soils. The Key because Act of 50 is the one place where primate soils are protected and the only place. So in terms of supporting our farms, we are endeavoring to figure out how to do that. The specific provision of $250 in sales of non qualified products is certainly a bright line and will be like bright lines because that way our organization can more easily implement the law and then apply it. My reaction to it is I just don't know where it came from, and I do agree it sounds a little bit arbitrary. Not that it's wrong or anything, I just don't understand the basis for picking that number. But the other issue that we have, I'm gonna rely on Jenny maybe to jump in and explain it because I may not do a great job, but what we're talking about are like business models or what you think might happen or how you, you know, or what are we gonna sell, and that's all like in the future instead of it's very speculative, and so we're also trying to find something that doesn't require a lot of research and evidence and information about, you know, do we need to see your books to show us, you know, what sold last year and that kind of thing. So I think that there are inherent challenges either way, whether you're doing ingredients or percentages. But let me just ask Jenny if I've explained that in any way that is satisfactory, if she wants to add in.

[Jen Moranis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: Sure. Well, I think you're very satisfactory, but I'll repeat it anyway in my own words. Act two fifty permits or

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: the No, permitting go ahead Jen, please.

[Jen Moranis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: I'm sorry. I'm Jen Moranis. I'm General Counsel for the Land Use Review Board. And to add to Brooke's comments, I would note that the so Act two fifty permitting process is ideally a prospective. Someone has a concept for a project. They can seek out a jurisdictional opinion as to whether a permit would be needed. If one is, they would acquire that permit, and then they would commence their operation. There is obviously we have an enforcement side, and we issue after the fact permits for projects that are discovered to have triggered jurisdiction inadvertently or inadvertently. But, that in an ideal world where everyone is seeking the need for permitting prior to their projects, it is, as Brooke said, it's difficult for people to predict or to be able to state with any kind of certainty what we're battling, whether they're the 50% of their annual sales or a certain dollar amount of sales are going to happen in any given year. So from an Act two fifty perspective, determining whether that project would trigger our jurisdiction, it's relatively unknown. I mean, we could rely on someone saying, I'm only going to make $240,000 next year off of these types of sales, and that's what we have. But Brooke really brings up a good point that we are on an enforcement sort of side or trying to look retroactively. It's a big burden of paperwork and processing and things like that. So ideally a bright line that doesn't involve having to look retroactively at the activities of a particular type of project would suit us very well.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay, so what we have is what I thought was a good explanation of where Joseph's people want to be. They want to be whole and pure and they want to use the products on their farms. They don't want to import products to kind of game the system. And then we have a 51% proponent of that. And then we have a $250,000 limit that seems to be some consternation as far as where it is. Let's just break that up and where should that number be? What's gonna make the Land Use Review Board happy? What's gonna be? What are we gonna be so that we don't have to have this argument when we're trying to sell this to the rest of the Senate and everyone and to solve the problem of what we're trying to do with on farm accessories so we can sail this thing through? Because a lot of times what happens in this building is that people think you have ulterior motives that you're trying to get to something different than what you're trying to get to. And that's not what we're trying to do. We are trying to solve a problem. And so what's gonna make it easier to solve? What's gonna make people happy so that we can say, no, listen, look at this. This is the single point that we're trying to do. So does anybody have any discussions about what we need to be to make that happen?

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: What I would say in response is unfortunately I'm part of a board and I can't give you that answer myself. From my personal perspective, I actually like the dollar number better than the percentages. I think there's not a much easier number to

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And maybe being here hearing what we're trying to do helps you go back to your board and say, no, they're pure. Right. They're yeah. They're not trying to do anything. Yeah. Maybe it was a and I'm not saying that,

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: but I'm just saying it's No.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: No. I get that. But but I don't I I wanna get it past the part of, well, where's that number from? What what are they doing? What are they you know? So that's what I wanna try to get to and say, okay. Well, if it's a number that's bothering folks, tell us the number because that's all we want to do or this is how they got to the numbers. Yeah, it sounded at first arbitrary but-

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah, then that's the piece of information that I'm just questioning in terms of the, you know, figuring out is that the right number? What is it based on? Because we've asked for more time on AOFD to do a better job at trying to conceptualize what is the best way to implement this? What is the bright line that Act two fifty can easily implement? And, I mean, don't look at it like we're just trying to figure out what are you trying to accomplish, what are you trying to capture, and then what is the best way to get there. So, we actually have a board meeting tomorrow where

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: I could take this

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: information back to the board and get back to you. That would be very helpful. Yeah.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Couldn't make your payment.

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: And because I know you don't want we want more time to study it. People want relief immediately. I understand that. And it's been a function of just trying to build this plane while we're there and having too many tasks to accomplish all in the time periods that we're given. Because we want to serve Vermonters, we want to serve farmers, we want to solve this problem to the extent possible. We are not in any way resistant. We're just trying to do it the right way, and not put something into law that then doesn't work out and needs to be then rectified or changed.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Two things. First, Jane and Brooke, I apologize for the mixing, too much, so forgive me. Secondly, a little bit to senator Ingalls', point, and I think to your point as well, it, when I hear you, so it would be easier if we had a number and that's that would, and how do we get to that number? And if you could, one, help us to figure out, well, how do we get to that number? And then I'm looking at Joseph as well and just making that fair for the farmers as well, so where that sweet spot is, so you can I I hate to use the word enforce, but you can implement

[Joseph Morell (Eastman Farm; Feast and Field Collective)]: I like the

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: the bright red light? Yeah. I like that. Yeah. Like that. So here it is. This is it,

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: and everybody's on the same page. Our farmers are satisfied. They know what the boundaries are. They know the framework. You know the framework. Everybody understands what it is, and then we can move forward. Think whenever you have something that is arbitrary, I think everybody goes, well, where do we get that from?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Sometimes you just get lucky. And it's the right number, you know? I mean, if you've got, if you've got, if the argument is where did the number come from versus, well, that's too high, that's too low. We're not having that discussion. We're just trying to figure where the number is.

[Jen Moranis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: If I may, sirs, I think that's partly why we're asking for an extension on the report. It would allow us to do more public outreach and involve stakeholders who could help us better determine what that number is. And we could make a recommendation that's based on a more holistic view of the problem other than just our perspective.

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah, I don't know whether we're capturing the right, are we just getting the little teeny farms and the bigger farms are being left out with that number? Those are the kinds of questions that we need to go back to the stakeholders and make sure that this is the right Joseph?

[Joseph Morell (Eastman Farm; Feast and Field Collective)]: Guess what I'm questioning is that by setting a number, I mean, just lived through an inflationary moment that we're still kind of dealing with. I think by setting a number, are we setting the legislature up for revising this number on a regular basis? Again, I go back to the 51% of farm products. Farmers know how much products they produce. They have records of that and those are readily available. And I think that the idea of setting a number that could in three years be very different, again, not scaled to small farm, large farm, and those differences, I just think it essentially is, it just seems like it sets the legislature up for having to revise this over and over again. Whereas the 51% of farm products is something that a farmer will be able to pretty easily. And I'm not sure why that's difficult for anyone to understand.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So how can we

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: Easy enough to put in the language of $250 to $1,000 with that it follows the cost of living, so the number always continues to go up if inflation goes up. I don't see why that

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Totally, let's go back to, and I think it has something to do with Emma, Why we even have the number in there? And Emma, why do we even have the number in there?

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. It's all your fault.

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: It's always my fault. It's not a very much.

[Emma Schuldeis (Vermont Dairy Producers Alliance; Little Village Enterprises)]: The number is in there because of the donation aspect and because of

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Emma Schuldeis (Vermont Dairy Producers Alliance; Little Village Enterprises)]: Because when you make a product, it combines multiple different things that also could be coming from neighboring farms. This is a way to capture more farms, but it's also the hope is, again, I think it's going be smaller farms, not like these massive farms. So I think it's these smaller farms who are donating and or preserving, getting back to the old farm kitchen aspect. I don't see how having the ore in there is an issue. I guess that's an answer question for but I think it just is capturing more farms.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Sure.

[Emma Schuldeis (Vermont Dairy Producers Alliance; Little Village Enterprises)]: And again, to to be think senator Major and I talked about this in the hallway a couple days ago. We are not looking to capture massive wedding venues, massive events like that, and I don't think anyone in this room is.

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: And it was for the nonprofits. That's why we put that number

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: in here.

[Jen Moranis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: Yes.

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: Because it it's hard for them to show

[Emma Schuldeis (Vermont Dairy Producers Alliance; Little Village Enterprises)]: Percentage versus dollar amount.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay.

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: I could just take this information back to the LERB and we'll talk about it tomorrow. We should have an abbreviated meeting tomorrow, but I think we can certainly get a conversation going about it to give you some feedback at this point. We understand the desire to act on this session.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: We really would like to. And I hear, Jenny, I'll take it back to stakeholder. I hear that I really like not to delay it that long. I think if we could get some language in there and we can set it up and hey, you know what? I I and I get it I I get it how this building works or how this town works that once you pass something, gotta run it into the ground all the way to China and turn around and come back without changing it. I understand that. But, you know, if we could put it in there to where it could be a a a a changing document, We can, we can do that. I just want to solve a problem. I want do two things. I want to solve a problem for our farmers who trying to do the right thing that I feel that are caught up in legislative mix of rule making and they're trying to be pure. I want to build trust amongst the people who they're caught up with and just say no, this is all we're trying to do. There's no other ulterior motives here. We're just trying to help farmers be more prosperous in a very great way and that you can trust us and that's what I want to get to. So yes, that would be very helpful for what you've said.

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: And if you folks decide to go forward with the legislation, are still requesting that extension

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Let not go forward without everybody nodding their head yes?

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: Oh, oh, yeah. I I just say, but we Yes,

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Even you not on

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: decide to do so, we would like the extension for the tier two process and also what we've asked for is an alignment of like tier three, the road rule, the criteria of the HC. Having all of those pushed out and having coordinated deadlines is really important. Now that we are in it, we know what's going to be required or things we do.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So were you in the room with Natural Resources on S-three 25, the bill that they're pushing out? Because it doesn't sound like they're,

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: I think it's 3.5,

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: but it doesn't sound like they are willing to push out anything as far as the roll rule and all that. It sounds like they're steaming full steam ahead with so

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah, we're working as if we're not getting any changes, but for the AOFB that really, I mean, our report originally was digital, if that works, so

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Because I'm hearing everywhere, I'm hearing everywhere that everybody would like to find a path forward to push a lot of the stuff out. Yeah, it seems to be steamrolling ahead as hard as it could go.

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: Right. And I tend to hop on road rule and

[Jen Moranis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: I would just note our chair and our executive director were with the Senate Natural Resources Committee on S three twenty five. And I believe the board is putting together a draft that has a proposal of date extensions that largely takes everything to a unified date on 12/31/2027. It is what they're seeking will be seeking there.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Because didn't they pass that bill out, Jenny?

[Jen Moranis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: I don't believe so yet.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. I think they're gonna vote on

[Jen Moranis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: Friday morning and we're counting on being able to get our board together for a consensus tomorrow and then prepare then sharing the language with them.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. Enough.

[Jen Moranis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: I'm maybe not right, though.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Is there anybody else on the screen that we're Is this Becky? Becky?

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: Becky can't come till 10:45.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: 10:45?

[Emma Schuldeis (Vermont Dairy Producers Alliance; Little Village Enterprises)]: She's coming in person.

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: She's coming in.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And I Okay.

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: We had it in seven times. Okay.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Oh, it's pooping out. I

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: think we're kinda down here Yeah. As far as with this, and if we could, yeah, maybe, has everybody said what they want to say? I'll take that as you. Okay. We're going to, we're gonna go off until 10:45. Ten. What's that?

[Joseph Morell (Eastman Farm; Feast and Field Collective)]: Actually, can I actually, do you mind if I say something just because I of the people that I have in the room right now?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yes. Last

[Joseph Morell (Eastman Farm; Feast and Field Collective)]: year when we or last spring when we did some testifying about our situation, I believe you called Peter Gill in and had him comment. And and, of course, you know, he couldn't comment about our case. That was obvious and and and and, you know, I understand completely. But he went into some lengths to talk about how the lurb really wanted to meet people where they were, to gather information, to not be hasty in terms of judgment. And it was interesting hearing Peter Gill say that because we did not really feel like we were receiving that kind of treatment. And I just wanted to reflect that. I know the lurb actually was just forming. And so, you know, and I understand that that was obviously like a lot of work and a lot of moving targets. And so I just just want to say that from our perspective, we did not feel a sense of cooperation or a sense of of really trying to get to the facts together. And I just wanna put that out there. I mean, we're

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Well, I think we're trying to get there now, Joseph, and I hear you. I think one of the proudest things I know about this committee is that we do allow voices to be heard very well and we try to protect the smallest of the small and the biggest of the big and everyone in between. So we do hear what you're saying and hopefully when it's all said and done, you'll feel that we've worked really hard, everybody's worked really hard to solve this problem. We want to solve this problem. That's what we want. We want to,

[Brooke Dingle Dean (Land Use Review Board)]: I did want to respond because I'm sorry that Mr. Morell feels that way. We've been in our positions for one year and it has been drinking out of the fire hose. Honestly, the number of tasks and deadlines and the tier work of regional plans, it is a daunting job. And I do want just Mr. Morell to understand that I am fully committed and all of our board members are. We just have so many items we've had to prioritize. So, I'm sorry that you have felt not engaged with and I will reach out directly to you because I would love to pick your brain and talk about these things. And that's really why we want the opportunity to touch back with the stakeholders because although I've represented farms for thirty years in my private law practice, I am not confident to identify and make decisions for our farms and what will work for them and we need that engagement with you. So that's, from my perspective, that's why we're asking for a little bit more time. Not to delay relief, but to do it the right way and to find the answers that really will work for the long term. So I make that commitment to you. I know I can make that commitment on the part of the whole board. We are really concerned about farms, very much so. And again, the only protection in Vermont for primate soils is through Act two fifty. And we understand that that is a heavy burden that we carry and need to protect that as well.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Senator Heffernan just relates to me. I think we have our from Bahia Mo.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. Well, I'm gonna take a ten minute break. I know our next people are in early, and we can start a little early. I just have to run upstairs for a minute, so let's take a ten minute break. I'll be back at 10:00. Okay?