 everyone thank you for coming. I'm very pleased that the governor is here with Suzanne Young, his secretary of the agency of administration and Adam Greshan who is the commissioner of the Department of Finance and Management. So thank you all very much for coming and thank you all for coming on a very cold morning. It was 13 below at my house in Hardwick so it was pretty cold here too I understand from what Suzanne was saying so thank you again for coming. We're going to be focusing our conversation this morning on the budget and so this is going to be a combination of questions from the digger staff and from the audience and our readership rather is a better way to put it although there might be questions from you in the audience here too. We had that happen last week. So governor I wanted to start with an easy softball for you. That's what we like. How would you describe your relationship with lawmakers this year? Well thank you Ann. First of all thank you very much for inviting us all here today. It's great to be here at the History Center as well as providing bagels and coffee. Thank you for that. We're enjoying a new fresh clean slate this year. I think it's refreshing in many ways when we look across the country and see all the dysfunction especially in DC and all the controversy that we took upon ourselves. I said that we have to change our approach. We're going to do it differently. We're going to try and do a lot more listening a lot more collaborating and so far so good. We've been well received in the committees, treated with respect and civility is something that is important to me and I think it's important to our future to our kids to be better role models and it all starts with each and every one of us. So I have a role to play in that to acknowledge that and so I think again we've been it's cordial, respectful and I hope it continues but there's always you know there's always controversy. There's always turmoil. It doesn't matter what administration it is, what legislative body it is, there's always tension, natural tension and that's okay but it's how we debate, how we choose to debate each other and how we choose to do that is really what's in coming upon each and every one of us. You want it? Sure, I'd be happy to add to that. I think the governor has just spoken about has actually already played out in terms of budget adjustment. We went into the budget adjustment process with some ideas for the legislature on how to use the surplus one time money that we accumulated to make a start on blood testing on some of our cyber security needs and came down some of the pension liabilities and that was well received. We've worked together and if things go well this week in the Senate budget adjustment process, I think you'll see some success from working together. Great, thank you very much. Okay, Governor, this is a little harder than this question. We've dipped our toe in the water. You took issue last month with a media's focus on what you called small and specific new taxes in your budget proposal. If you did not think this was a significant break from previous years, why did you issue your letter in the middle of the last legislative session stating your opposition to a list of bills somewhere similarly small and specific taxes, including any cigarette tax? Yeah, fair, fair question. And, you know, when I when I talked about our list of accomplishments this year, and maybe some view of changing a position, it was more of an acknowledgement and somewhat of a change in tactic. In some respects, I said why ran my first time out? I said that we needed a correction in Vermont that we're spending beyond our means. I thought we needed to live in our means. I didn't believe that we needed to raise any tax or fees to do it. We presented budgets that I thought would accomplish that. So we and I was steadfast in that I didn't put a line in the sand and said, you know, no more tax and fees now for these two years. And I thought it was needed. And I thought it was it benefited the state. As a result, I think we saw there was economic growth without raising tax and fees. I think it gave Vermont a break individually and the businesses as well. And I think we're better off for it. So during the campaign, I was asked about whether we're going to be raising any fees or whether we're going to consider any new taxes. And I said consistently that I wasn't putting a line the same that acknowledge that we went through the first two years and we may have to change. But it would be a high bar as well that we weren't going to just automatically increase fees across the across the board, or look to increase as a knee jerk reaction to anything. But but there would be consideration of that. So it wasn't I don't think it should have been a surprise when this year came out. One of the surprises might have been with e cigarettes that I said that we needed to I thought this was a public health issue that particularly with our kids, that we should be raising the tax accordingly to prevent more use amongst our youth as well. We looked for opportunities to to to modernize our tax code, particularly with the way fair decision and the island online sales tax that there were other areas of opportunity to make sure that it was we had some parodies that within the with the Brooks and mortar businesses in our downtowns that that we brought that in line. So we found some opportunities there. So across the board, I wouldn't say it was a drastic change, more of a transition. And and so again, I think that will that will all play out. I believe that for monitors of well served. We still are living within our means, so to speak, but we have found some areas that that we could bring in more revenue. The bottom line is that we are seeing more revenue, even after again, two years of no tax and fees for for the most part, we're seeing more revenue come into the bottom line. Unfortunately, the frustration is that we have some upward pressures as well. So a lot of that that surplus that money on the bottom line has been used up in some of those upward pressures. Thank you. Good morning. I just wanted to remind some listeners with more active memories. I remember when we presented the budget last year, one of the questions we got almost immediately was, are there no taxes fees and our response then and it is the same today is, you know, last year, the year before we hit the pause, but there was no religious or spiritual objection to raising fees or taxes, but they were our last resort. And I think that's true today. We've had two years to look over the landscape. We've had a couple of years to look at all the programs we run within government to speak actively with our agency secretaries and commissioners within the departments. And so we know where the pressures are, and we know where the pressures are not. And so I think what you see this year are decisions made that reflect those areas that we believe need some guidance. But you know, we said that and it's still true today that, you know, raising taxes or fees are a last resort, but there's no spiritual objection to that. Thank you. Spirituality and taxes in one sentence. Hugh Williams from Shelburne has a question pertaining to the 2018 tax reform law enacted mid year, which resulted in the removal of any medical deductions on the Mont State taxes. While impacting people, volley just this change particularly impacts those in our senior community, who encountered major medical outlays. Excuse me. voluntary charitable contributions were granted a limited tax credit and yet non voluntary medical expenses received no deduction and credit. Even the 2019 Vermont Taxpayer Advocates report points out that there is a small but vulnerable population with high medical expenses relative to their just a gross income, an area that a taxpayer cannot plan for or reduce, and suggests a proposed resolution and mandatory income tax statute to include a medical expenses deduction and credit. Going forward, what do you plan to do to ensure the tax mitigation in this area is accomplished? Well, I'll take a stab at that first and then maybe let others speak to that directly. You know, there was a lot going on over the last two years, particularly on the federal level with tax changes. And we tried to keep up. That's why we we made some changes to the the income tax as a result from Vermont income tax. So so that we could maintain again, fairness for Vermont taxpayers. This was an area I believe that was maybe overlooked. And particularly in Wake Robin, we've heard a lot of some of the concerns there. And I believe they're founded. And we'll have to take a look and see what we can do. I know our Commissioner of taxes is is looking at that at this point, because we want there to be fairness across the board. We saw that in terms of the charitable contributions. I believe what we came up with was unique. I think it was fair. We acknowledged that we have a lot of nonprofits in Vermont. We want there to be some sort of benefit to giving. So that's why we came up with a concept that we did to maintain that. And we'll see whether it plays out. We won't know that probably until till this time around, maybe the next year as well. And trying to maintain that because we we want to make sure that they're important to our to Vermont to the way we do business, our tolerance, our compassion for others. And we want to make sure that we maintain that. But the the medical the medical expenses for that, that population is something that is concerning to me. And I know that we're we're looking at that as we speak. Do you have anything to add to that, Suzanne? No, we are looking at that. As the governor pointed out, there was a lot going on with the federal tax reform. Our tax department acted very quickly and very in depth in terms of coming up with a plan in early February to offset the impacts on working families. And again, there are deductions that have gone away that have had impacts. And I think, as the governor pointed out, the tax commissioner has brought that to our attention in his in conversation with legislators and looking to see if there is a solution to that. Great. Thank you. This question is from Robert Anderson of Bristol. And he wants to know many, many Vermont seniors on social security have difficulty with increasing property taxes. Would Governor Scott's administration be willing to consider change in the way the education tax adjustment is calculated? So as to exempt some of the social security earnings, for example, up to $20,000 from household income, this would help many retirees to keep their homes. Thank you. Yeah, there's there's many ways to answer that in some respects. I'm always willing to listen to to a different approach to how we collect our education taxes. So to speak, it's been mostly based on on property taxes. Although this is past session, we did use the sales tax as well to pay for education. But there's a couple of issues. One is that it really does make us it makes us focus on what the real challenges we face in Vermont. And I believe it's about workforce, it's about trying to bring more people into the state. Throughout the campaign, I encountered someone I mentioned at my, and my state of the state address, I believe, or maybe my budget address that someone had remarked, we don't need more taxes in this state. We need more taxpayers. And I thought that was simplistic in some ways, but true. What we need are more people paying in. We have a stagnant population, somewhat of a decline last year. We have more people have more people dying than being born in the state. So we need to encourage more families. We need to be more attractive to families and particularly those seeking opportunities to come to the state. And that's why we're focusing on that to spread some of the some of the burden across all taxpayers. So as we age, you know, we have more of an aging population. So we have more people that have low income, maybe higher value in property. So I understand their pain. And I'm willing to look at that. But we need to look at our whole system as well. We spend a lot for education in Vermont. It's one of it's the the largest state expenditure in the state government, about $1.7 billion. So we have to do things differently. As I've stated before, I believe that we need to to look more in developing the foundation of our kids. We need to spend more in early care and learning. I think that the cradle to career concept makes a lot of sense to try to give them that foundation so that we can provide for them and provide for a career path for them in their future as well in career and technical education as well. So that cradle to career concept is something that is near and dear to my heart and something that I think is doable and we can make we can have the best the best education system in the country as a result, bring more families in, spread the risk and the burden out more amongst our taxpayers. But if we if we do all this at the same time, I'm more than willing to take a look at at ways we can reduce the burden on our on our senior population. I don't think it's fair to take this into the deep into property tax mechanism. But I you know, I would say I think our tax commissioner last year said that there's each individual property owner has to do over 20 calculations just to determine his or her property tax rate. And the more complexity we put into it, the more calculations that have to be done and the more separated you become from the basic decision of a school budget translating into a property tax rate. So I would go back to the governor's original comment that the issue is not our property tax rate system, but more how much we're spending and the growth in the school spending. So I think that's really where we have to concentrate not making our mechanism more complex. On that topic, just a follow up question. What initiatives are you, you know, what steps are you taking this year to address public education costs? Is there wasn't emphasis on that in your budget address? And that's something that you really concentrate on the first biennium. And I wondered what what follow up there is being taken on that? Well, there was a bit of resistance to some of the proposals we've made in the first two years. I don't and I get it. I understand that we we have to focus on areas where we can work together. I'm looking again at at ways that we can enhance our education system, particularly with early care and learning problem more with child care at this point in time. But I think it's it's within we know that child's brain develops immensely fast zero to five. So we need to get to them earlier or provide for more education, more help in that regard as well with child care. I think that that would help in terms of the workforce and be more attractive to families coming to our state. So trying to to to enhance more career technical education, I think is something again that's important to me as well to focus on on trying to expand into early care and learning is something that's important and and trying to find you know reallocating the resources within what we're spending today I think is important. We spend again a lot of money for education and and so if we can find opportunities to reallocate those those resources within the cradle to career approach, I believe that we'll have a a great system, one of the best in the country and that we can highlight and showcase so that we can use that as a as a mechanism to attract more people to the state and help again in terms of of spreading that risk amongst many and I think that that's really important. We need more people. When I said before we we don't need more taxes. We need more taxpayers. It's so true and and when you look at at at how the effect of one person coming into the system and how that the ripple effect of that across the tax system it's truly remarkable how one person can make a real difference in bringing more revenue into the state. Thank you very much. Peter Crawford from Brighport and Martha Hicks Poffitt from Wells both have questions about the clean water programs and come on Martha would like you to explain how you plan to pay for clean water and Peter Crawford wants to know why there's so little mention in your clean water funding plan of the huge he says all caps problem of combined sewer overflows that put over 35 million gallons of sewage tainted storm water in our lakes mostly like Champlain and rivers in 2018. Is it because separating sewer and storm drains is so expensive that it's not possible to fund? The this where to start in terms of focusing on cleaning up our waterways streams and lakes is something that we're committed to. In fact we've had an increase of spending a dramatic increase of spending over the last few years. We're committed to that and finding ways to address that I think the legislature has an interest we have an interest we put a proposal together that we think makes a lot of sense. We have a dedicated source with using part of the estate tax and doing so we think that makes a lot of sense and so we're moving forward I think again this is something that will work out with the legislature but we're all pulling in the same direction. We may have different approaches on on how to do it but but I think we're all committed to to the appropriate level of spending. In terms of the sewer storm separation projects we for the last 20 or 30 years we've had what's called the CSO program and this because a lot of communities have have were combined sewer and storm so we're trying to separate them at this point in time up to the years not a lot in that regard it costs a lot of money to do so but then you know what do you do after as well once you separate the two which is important because we want to make sure that that we're just treating the the septic portion of that the effluent in our treatment plants to take the burden off of that but then we have the storm water discharge as well we want to treat that to that's important to do and we're seeing you know with climate change climate change is real we're seeing it you know we see the dramatic effects of that right here in Vermont right now all the significant snowfall we've seen this year alone I think we've had six or seven feet of snow and it's in its entirety but we've lost almost that much in some areas as well and we've had significant rain events during the winter so our climate is changing dramatically which further puts burden on the storm water systems that we have in the place which further burdens some of the the treatment facilities so we we have a long ways to go again we're committed to doing as much as we can in the meantime in trying to separate storm and sewer but but at the same time treating some of the storm storm systems with storm water discharge ponds and different concepts as we as we move forward I think we've we've committed to about fifty million dollars and Sam can go into maybe a little bit more detail on this but about fifty million dollars in this year's budget alone for storm water thank you governor the clean water act is I think in its third year of implementation now and with the when the scott administration started back two years ago in january we were hearing a lot of questions about what are we spending all this money on there is this money going and treasurer peers that have suggested a bridge plan using capital dollars primarily for the first two years we very much appreciated that the clean water board has been working with the clean water initiative which is a combination of employees from agriculture commerce and de c to really handle on where is the money coming where's the money coming from as the governor pointed out there's forty eight million dollars in this budget of either state or federal money that passes through the state's offers and that doesn't count the federal dollars and the private dollars that are going into clean water that we don't have a way to count the clean water initiative has done a masterful job of pulling together all the pieces of cards into one budget and we have proposed what is actually I believe fourth funding stream into the clean water fund this year we have about two million dollars a year coming from the students on bottle deposits we have about five million dollars coming from a surcharge in the property transfer tax we have another 10 to 12 million in the capital bill plus the governor's proposal to direct some of the estate tax towards the clean water fund alone so we're making great progress and if anybody really wants to see the work that's gone on in the state in every locality the the department of environmental conservation is clean water initiative website is so granular it will tell you projects within your area that have been funded with the clean water fund and other funds thank you very much at this point I'd like to open it up to the audience I don't know if folks have questions they want to ask me yes please governor based on their economic benefits provided to the rural water economy by maintaining our trouser program and your state goals of improving that economy through initiatives such as bull red what steps are you going to take to work with the department of fish and wildlife to keep the Southbury Fish and Wildlife Association when the fish and wildlife department came to us this year they're facing a deficit of about a half a million dollars as you probably are well aware the licenses number of licenses are decreasing the costs of protecting our our natural resources and that program and and maintaining our wardens and so forth enforcing the laws are increasing so we are looking for opportunities to to fill that and one of the the steps one of the proposals that came forward was to raise the costs of licenses hunting and fishing licenses I didn't think that was a good idea because I felt as though with the decreasing amount of licenses sold that we're putting more burden on those who are just utilizing them I I know myself I buy my hunting and fishing license every year I think it's important to do and I think that we have to find ways to increase the number of licensed sales and I don't think raising the price of a license accomplishes that so when we we ask for further ideas on how we could fill that gap that half a million dollar operating a gap they talked about the Salisbury fish hatchery now the Salisbury fish hatchery for those who who are aware is one of our oldest facilities it's it's facing a capital expenditure in the very near future of about 12 to 15 million dollars top grade and it's it's it's nutrient rich in that area and it's discharging into an impaired stream so there's a need for a capital investment now they're also saying that even with the capital investment of 12 to 15 million dollars that that may not cure the problem so my suggestion was there's four or five employees at the Salisbury facility and can take into account that we had Roxbury Roxbury fish hatchery which was destroyed by Irene was it's just being built as we speak we had a groundbreaking there where it's going to be another year year and a half before that's put online but when you take into account the production in Roxbury Roxbury produces anticipates producing about 75,000 fish Salisbury produces about 25,000 fish so when I do the simple math on on the costs associated with Salisbury and and the looking into the future with that capital investment it makes more sense for me from my standpoint to put more resources into the existing existing facilities that we have including Roxbury so Roxbury is going to produce three times as many fish at a reduced operating cost in Salisbury and when you compare it to some of the other fish hatcheries throughout the state again it pales in comparison we we produce about 1.3 million fish out of our fish hatcheries every single year so while Salisbury very important it's it's the smallest of all and the most the most costly so I'm just looking for opportunities to do things more efficiently I believe that again we've been without Roxbury those 75,000 fish over the last eight years since Irene and when we put that back on the line we'll actually be increasing the number of fish produced in Vermont I'm very impressed by your fish numbers you really have arms around that one you were ready it's important you know it really is it's important to the the sporting community and and I just thought it was important for me to take out to take a look at what what we were actually doing I certainly don't want to put push put our outdoor community at risk the sportsmen at risk and I don't believe this doesn't so but but I'm always open to the ideas we also use you know over the years I was chair of the of the institutions committee and and for years I advocated and worked with the Walleye Association to try and use capital dollars fought for that over a number of years and we were able to include that in our capital budget every single year and they do it privatized they do it themselves and they do it at a at a reduced cost in some respects so there may be other opportunities as well for us to work with the sporting community to make sure that we we highlight benefit and expand in that regard because we're known for good fishing in Vermont and we want to maintain that thank you do we have other questions governor and maybe all of you what I'm wondering with you know as you mentioned you need new taxpayers one thing that you're doing for that or you know I'm like what are you doing about the world internet and also one of the things I moved here two years ago and I wasn't able to take advantage of the home set if you have new homeowners coming into the state you know they're going to have a higher tax than those who've been here for a while is there any way you can reduce that tax or make it more advantageous well again we're looking for a lot of opportunities any opportunity we can to be more attractive again I think some of the some of the tax burdens that's why I'm so resistant to to adding to the tax burden in the state because I believe that we're competing with other states for for people for the workforce and and and so forth so we're we came up with a couple of concepts working with the legislature as you might remember there was the the remote worker program that that offered that's just coming online now that offered $10,000 per person to come to the state and we received our share this was a legislative initiative that I thought I wasn't sure how it's going to work out but certainly we have 3,000 inquiries about that one program alone we have enough money for about 25 people so it's not going to satisfy the need but but we received a share of criticism as well about from people in the state saying you know that's great and you're trying to help these people come to from up what about me what are you doing for me how are you helping me out how about sending me a check for $10,000 I mean we got that a lot and I understand that but but again when you do the math and you look at the ripple effect when you when you have that one person that can work remotely and buys a home and pays their taxes and sales taxes and so forth and so on it only takes a couple of years to pay that back so it's a the return on investment is pretty good so from from that standpoint we're looking for other initiatives to bring people in what was the first part of your specifically well the rural internet oh yeah that's right I lost that part so that's important obviously there have been a couple of other couple of other governors who have made a commitment by a certain period of time to to have you the cell service of broadband I have not made that commitment but but I think it's important to our state we and the reason it hasn't been accomplished is it's expensive but we are putting money in the connectivity fund this year we think that that will be beneficial we are proposing to to have some beta funding for communities that that don't have any in there in their communities and and have a plan that they want to put forward we want to help them in that that respect and again we're looking forward to working with the legislature find other opportunities so that we can expand in that area yeah just specifically Lee the the governor mentioned the connectivity initiative and most of our effort in fact virtually all our effort this year in the budget is to work with both providers and with end users on that famous last mile which is so challenging so the there is just under a million dollars in the governor's proposed budget for the connectivity initiative which would be targeted most of it towards providers and sending them to bring capital and expertise to bear in rural communities there's also a small amount of money that is going to municipalities or or towns to help them devise plans to become connected and as the governor mentioned a little earlier we're also ceding a revolving loan fund to work with Vita that will provide loans to providers again to try to incent them and make it economically worthwhile for them to roll out broadband into rural communities so yes the promise I think very smartly has not been made that will be universal broadband but we are putting our money where we think the need is and that is one of the major needs in Vermont super well it's it's the witching hours approaching I think it's 849 so unless do we have any other questions oh Anne has a question thanks Governor as you probably know that you were probably going to see a minimum wage bill this year is there any minimum wage that you would support that minimum wage increase well first of all the question is about minimum wage and whether that I would support any increase in that first of all I want all Vermonters to make more money that's my goal as well so we're looking common goals I want Vermont to be more prosperous I want Vermonters to make more money I just am very concerned about the rural areas of our state particularly the eastern part of our state we share a border I don't know if some of you have heard but we share a border with New Hampshire New Hampshire is known for low taxes low no income tax no sales tax no corporate tax that I know of and but also they have a they have a low minimum wage as well 725 so we're we're in conflict with them all the time I'm just concerned that artificially raising the minimum wage is going to have a detrimental effect on a rural economy and that's something that I would like to avoid we look at I travel the state a lot and I see some of the communities who are struggling tremendously we were up in the northeast kingdom last week up in Essex County and Canaan and Charleston and Island Pond and and it's just you know you get a sentence for what's what's happening to our state so again I want people to make more money we'll see where it goes in legislature I don't think it's I don't believe it's passed out of either body at this point but but I haven't put any lies in the sand it's something that I will contemplate but but again I would just advocate that this could put our rural economy at risk there there are businesses that are just on the edge at this point in time particularly on that that eastern border and that and I believe that that would just force them to either reduce their hours work these mom and pops would just end up working more hours and and I'm not sure that that would benefit all of of the rural rural economy Thank you Karen did you have a question? As you know we're at Dallin's Rural State that means that towns can only do those things that the legislature actually gives them permission to do this year we have a proposal we hope it comes out in no form this week that would set up a pilot project which would allow towns to apply for self-governance authority and to be able to make their own decisions about what happens within their borders affecting their local governance and I'm wondering what your thoughts could be on that Well I appreciate local control at the same time I'm not sure what the ripple effect of that would be certainly willing to take a look I hadn't heard that to be honest with you Karen but we're more than willing to take a look and see what what effect that that would have on the state I'm just not sure at this point in time but I would be happy to take a look anything? No I hadn't hadn't heard about that either so take a look but as the number points out the ripple effects will be interesting Good well anyone else we can call and then have an answer question yet Okay then we'll we'll call but sorry I think your approach to the legislature this year has been much more consistent with the sort of attitude that you brought to the state house as a senator and I guess I'm wondering during the two year during the last two years sort of why did you think taking a more combative approach to the legislature would be more effective? Well again I was I ran on the premise that we didn't need to raise tax and fees and that was you know my approach was I put a line in the sand admittedly put a line in the sand we weren't going to raise tax and fees I was going to resist their veto anything that did and that set up a bit of controversy obviously but but I thought it was important and I think it was beneficial it gave there was a correction that transpire as a result I think it did put more money in the pockets of Vermonters gave them some breathing room and I think the approach while it was it was controversial difficult but I thought it was necessary but now is the time to again reflect do things differently I don't want to I think we need to to be respectful and civil I will say throughout that whole our ordeal as messy as it's a gut as much drama as there might have been I never mistreated anyone I never I always listened I was respectful I was civil and and I tried to follow through on anything that I said so I wouldn't say that it's disrespectful but it was it might have been difficult and it certainly had its share of drama and I guess tax and fees is sort of one of the main issues the other one is really putting a lot of pressure on downward cost of pressure is on education and it seems like that's something you're not doing this here is that because you just think it's useless essentially well again there was a lot of resistance to that and so I acknowledge that and so I have to to put put our resources towards areas that I think that we can accomplish together and I still believe that we spend a tremendous amount for education it's one of the largest cost drivers for our property taxes and some of the the tax pressures we're feeling the burdens that Vermonters are feeling and that's going to be ongoing but I want to be collaborative I want to work together I want to to find a different way to to accomplish the same thing and so I'm just looking for different ways to do that there's always a way if you can if you can agree to the goals then it's just it's just maybe a different approach on how to get there and it's like I think of it as a map when you want to get to point A to from point A to point B we all have different ways of getting there and so we just have to respectfully debate on on how to do that and I'm looking forward to doing that kind of one more question down in Bennington there's been sort of the main news story for us this week has been Matt Smith going to court for illegal magazine is that saying illegal magazine devices I know that piece of the bill was something you didn't really support and I guess I'm just wondering what you think of the situation down there whether you have concerns for the way it's being handled and I feel like that well again it's law so if you violate the law I understand that that's was part of the investigation and he was cited for that and it's the law whether again I signed every single bill so in the end I did support that it wasn't something that was high in my priority list in terms of the magazines but I but it's but it's law now and we'll debate that I think today it's in the Supreme Court so so we'll find out where we go from here thank you so probably where do you stand on your questions? yeah well it won't be a long answer I've you know I I believe in a woman's right to choose I'm pro-choice and I believe that it's got a long ways to go as it works its way through the legislative process I think that what this is a result of some fear on the federal level of what was going to happen to that woman's right to choose and I'm I'm not sure if that's the still the case protecting road v-way is important and codifying that was what that was how was it explained to me in the beginning and I'm supportive of of codifying road v-way now what road v-way means to to each and every one of us is probably an area that's going to be debated and I think that that's what we'll see in the legislature but I think it's for them to work the way through it but but again I believe in a woman's right to choose and I'm I'm pro-choice Governor thank you so much for joining us this morning thank you so much thank you thank you Adam it's great pleasure to have you here thank you thank you all