 Channel 17's forum with Democratic candidates for governor. I'm Xander Landon, VT Digger Reporter, and I'll be moderating tonight's debate. We're going to start off with minute 30 second opening statements where you introduce yourself to the audience, explain your platform a little bit. I'm going to be asking a series of questions after that for the next hour or so. All of those questions will be about, I'm expecting, minute and a half responses roughly. So James, would you start with an opening statement? This is James Ellers. Sure. Thank you, Channel 17, for this opportunity. I filed to run for governor a year ago, realizing that our governor, currently Governor Scott, is not representing our interest as Vermonters. We're all working harder for less money, access to health care as a struggle. We're in a childcare crisis. Our waterways are being destroyed. People are not being compensated fairly for their full-time work. I just couldn't sit by and have that continue. See it happen for another two years, yet again. I'm a blue-collar kid. I've got four small children, and Vermont is a special place, an extremely special place. And if we all come together, even with my colleagues here at the table, we all share a difference in some policy areas, but we all substantively have the same principles. And that is that the people of this state matter. And I welcome that opportunity to bring the people's voice to the governor's office free of special interest. Thank you. Thank you, James Christine. Alquist. I'm a person that pulls people together to do big things. Until March, I was the CEO of Vermont Electric Cooperative. We served about a fifth of Vermont with electricity. And remember, we were a cooperative just like a food co-op. My passion in life was to demonstrate the electric grid could solve climate change. When I left, we were 96% carbon-free. We were offering incentives for people to move away from fossil fuel heating, cooling and transportation. And we did that without a rate increase for five years, essentially proving you can solve climate change. It does not need to cost more money. I love Vermont. But when I have my 40-plus years, I've done everything from school board to mental health board to the past five years. I've been the moderator for town meeting. But I look at the way the governor's been running the state. He's been running it on division. That's not the Vermont I know and love. What I would do for Vermont as governor, I would focus on rural economic development, which would include connecting every home and business with fiber optic cable so Vermonters could be connected to the internet the same speed as New York and Tokyo. I would continue to move us to an improved Medicare for all system for health care. I would accelerate the work we're doing on climate change, as well as ensure every child receives a quality public education. And I will tell you that fundamental to all this is I talked to thousands of Vermonters and growing Vermont's economy is important because we need to get more food on the table rather than to continue to fight over the scraps. Thank you, Christine. Brenda Siegel. About a year and a half ago, I started doing some informal research to find out how well I was reflected in our government as a low income single mom. I, of course, found out that I'm not reflected, not locally, not nationally, and not statewide. That ran antithetical to everything that I believe, which is that unless and until all of our voices are at the table, we are not going to see the changes we want and need to see across this state and across this nation. What I know from my career, which is developing a long term economic driver following Tropical Storm Irene, is that when you utilize the resources that already exist within our state and we connect them to small businesses and to our government, that is when we begin to build a bottom up economy. We know that wealth does not trickle down and poverty does trickle up. We need to do what it takes to build from the bottom. We also need to support and promote our strong education system, doing things like implementing the ethnic studies standard and centralizing services closer to schools. About a year and a half ago, I'm sorry, on March 7th, I decided for sure that I would run for governor. On March 8th, I got a call that my nephew had died of heroin overdose. He was a son of my brother who died 20 years ago of a heroin overdose. I watched the system fail him. I know that we can do better. What I know is that when we all come together, when we allow new voices at every level of leadership, that is when we will begin to build a government that works for all of us. Thank you, Brenda. Senator John Rogers of Glover. In your opening statement, Senator Rogers, could you explain you are running as a write-in candidate? Your name will not be on the ballot on primary day. Could you explain why you decided to run in this fashion and if this is a serious run for you? Absolutely, Xander. I want to thank both Digger and Channel 17 for inviting me. It's the first forum I've been invited to. The write-in campaign happened after petitions were passed due and I got contacted by some folks who felt that there was no one in the race that they could support. They didn't think anybody shared their values and they asked me if I would run and I said, well, the only way to do it now is as a write-in and it's a very heavy lift and a long shot. They were undeterred and they said, well, we'll do it. I told them I was focusing on my Senate race. I have a small construction business and I have a lot of work lined up in people that I've made commitments to and I stick by my commitments. My family and I are also starting up a hemp business. So I just felt before petitions were due that I didn't have the time to run a statewide race, but I sort of felt the same as they did. So I said, yeah, go ahead. And so from there they have taken off. I've been going to meetings and forums and anything that people are inviting me to. But other than that have not been running a traditional campaign. Thank you very much. Ethan Sonneborn. I'm Ethan Sonneborn. I'm running for governor of Vermont. I can sum up my campaign in a simple phrase. It's the job of government to make people's lives easier. I think that and let me tell you how I think we do it. I think we do it by making sure that we increase access to health care across socioeconomic boundaries. I think we do it by raising wages. I think we do it by standing up for those in our state who have been exploited by the system. I also think we do it by building a government that puts people first. A government that recognizes that we as a state are only as strong as our weakest link. And that until we recognize this and until we start to move towards a state that truly works for everybody and an economy that works for everybody, then we can't recognize the Vermont dream. The way we get to a place where we can say that this is the Vermont dream is when there is equity, is when there is transparency in government and is when we are able to go to communities all over the state and say, your government is looking out for you. And that's how we build the Vermont dream of strong communities with strong values. Thank you very much. So we'll now get into the questions. So none of you with the exception of Senator Rogers have experienced holding statewide public office. A poll from VPR and Vermont PBS that came out last month showed that of the four of you, 50% of Vermonters don't, less than 50% of Vermonters know who each of you are. So my question is, what makes you think that you're qualified to be governor if you were elected? And also what makes you think that you could beat incumbent Governor Phil Scott? And Christine, you begin. Well, I'm actually very proud of the fact that we got to a 41% recognition rating when entering the race in March. I think that was quite a move. And I will also point out that the governor's popularity dropped 32 points during this period. So he's vulnerable. I would say that, I think what Vermonters should look for in a governor is leadership. I have a strong history of leadership that goes way back. I will kind of tell you the story of Vermon Electric Cooperative. When I came to the co-op, we were on the edge of bankruptcy. We were, the state wanted to put us out of business. We had the highest number of outages in the state. And I pulled the employees together and I said, look, I have strong business background. Worked with a variety of businesses, but I only give myself a 10% chance of success. If we all pull together, we can be successful. I also did something else because I had experience working with unions and I have strong respect for unions. I said, we're all including myself gonna abide by the union contract. Whatever race you get, I get. And I know the power of pulling together, you can do miraculous things. Five years later, I was invited down to the Department of Energy. I thought I was meeting with one or two people. I met with all the heads of the department. They told us we were the most innovative utility in the nation. We also went from a triple B minus with a negative outlook to an A plus rating. And financial folks would tell you that's impossible for the size of the company we were. And we also cut our outages by more than one half. So I know the miracle of what can happen when people pull together. I'm a collaborative leader and you get so much more when you engage folks and they give you your emotional energy. The command and control model that we're seeing our governor use today, that's fine during power outages and fires, but it's not how you create excitement and lead. Thank you, Christine Brenda. I'll first point out that Phil Scott had 17 years in the state house and is a CEO and does not seem to understand leadership. He doesn't negotiate with anyone. He doesn't negotiate with the state employees union. He doesn't negotiate with the teachers union and he doesn't negotiate with the legislature. So I think that it's time that we redefine leadership. My career has been in executive leadership. I have put forth strong visions and worked with many different groups and many different opposing views and we're built together to create a very strong economy. I've put forth throughout this campaign some very strong plans, including for the opioid epidemic. And I think what we need right now is to have all of our voices at the table. And until we do that, we're not going to see the changes that we want and need. As long as we believe that it has to, the leadership has to come from the same place, the same funnel either within the legislature or as a CEO, that is how we continue to have the same outcome. We need to see a different kind of leadership if we want to see new outcomes. Thank you, Senator Rogers. Senator, first I'm going to say I feel a little bit slighted on my introduction. I answered the question, didn't really get a chance to introduce myself. So just a little bit for the audience who doesn't know me, I grew up on a dairy farm in Glover, Vermont and my family's been there for five generations. So we have deep roots and a lot of the families around us have been there for as many generations. So it's a real tight community and that's what I wish the entire state could be as tight a community as we have in Glover. I've run a small construction business since I was in my 20s and I've served in the house for eight years and in the Senate for six years. So I do have legislative leadership and I have a record of working across party lines and with all people for the benefit of Vermonters. And I think that's what I bring to the table and that's what people recognize is that I have that record, I've built it over time. When I went to Montpelier, I promised that I would work for the folks who voted for me. I don't work for a political party. Very few people in that state house actually even have the opportunity to vote for me. And so I've always focused on working for the people who vote for me and send me to Montpelier. Thank you very much. Is there anything else you'd like to add about your sort of chances if you were pitted against the governor in a reelection bid? Sure, and I think that's one of the differences that I bring to the table. I've worked with both James and Christine in the state house and have had the chance to hear both Ethan and Brenda. And I think they've all got some great ideas but I think because of my background, I think I do have a better chance in the November. The problem is with this unconventional write-in campaign, I probably have less of a chance in the primary because my name isn't actually on the ticket. I do realize that it's an uphill battle to get people to write your name in. But there's a huge grassroots effort and my name is getting out there and we'll see what they come up with. And if I do happen to be the nominee, then I'll ramp things up and take on Phil Scotthead on. Great, Ethan. I think that all over the state, everyone I talk to is looking for change. I think I can beat the governor because he represents what people hate about politics. He represents people who have become so embedded in the system that they've become allergic to work. And until he saw his approval numbers crater, he felt entitled to this reelection. Now he's running scared. We have a unique opportunity to defeat him in November. And I think that the way we do that is by running a candidate like we've never run before, I am obviously very different than the other four candidates at this table. And I think I am the candidate who best represents the change we need about Pealier. Excellent, thank you very much. James. Just because someone has the title doesn't mean they have the capacity or the skills. And we've seen that sadly with Governor Scott. For me, I've started my career, if you will, entrusted with the lives of our fellow Americans as a naval officer, preparing them and if necessary to take people into combat. So I feel like at the age of 22, 21, that experience has transformed my entire life actually, dealing with people from all different backgrounds, from all over the country, all economic classes, gender, race, and leadership is about values and it's about principles and it's about leading through example. And so people are tired of the status quo. They're tired of entrenched special interest. And so running without corporate money, running an entire year of a grassroots campaign, rallying the two Vermonts, and perhaps we can get into that later. I have the ability to bridge the two Vermonts and deliver on the state that we all know we can be and want to be. Thank you very much. A lot of you have very similar seeming, progressive, democratic platforms. What I think many viewers want to know is what sets you apart. What in your mind sets you apart from the rest of the candidates sitting at the table in terms of the policy initiatives you would pursue if elected to become governor. And we will start with Brenda. My career has been and as well as throughout my life in building bridges. So I've been able to pull together lots of different people in order to make sure that we're making strong forward progress. Yes, I've been a community organizer and an executive involved in executive leadership as well, but I also have a strong progressive history from the day that I first started pushing forward ideas till now. I have pushed forward the same set of values and ideas and I have made sure that I am working with lots of different types of leaders in order to do that. And that includes working with business owners, with the arts, with recreation, with farms, and as well as with our legislators. Throughout the last several years, I've been working on the Raise the Wage Coalition and working with a lot of legislators testifying and speaking out. And I think that that is unique within this group of people that I have really had the long-standing history of pushing forward these progressive values. Thank you. Senator Rogers. Senator, I think what sets me apart is my life experience. I grew up on a dairy farm where we raised all our own food, beef, pork, chickens. We had lay and hens, we had a huge garden, we froze and canned vegetables, largely self-sufficient. We worked in the woods managing a few hundred acres of forest land, selective cutting to allow the generations of trees to continue to come and be productive. Excuse me. In my construction business, I've done everything from building houses and barns and bridges and septic systems, water systems, drainage systems. I've stabilized shoreland along lakes and streams and roads and road ditches. So I've got a broad experience. I think I understand Vermonters because a lot of Vermonters are out there every day doing that same sort of work, getting up early, working hard and coming home and all they want is to be able to have a decent house and a decent car, be able to pay their taxes and provide for their family. And it'd be really nice if every Vermonter had a chance to get a vacation every year because a lot of Vermonters never get a chance to get a vacation. And there's a lot of really bright kids out there that never get a chance to go to college because they come from poor families. And that's one of the things I think we really need to improve is how do we get our kids from cradle to gainfully employed and hopefully a lot of them stay in here in the state being the next great entrepreneurs and business leaders. Thank you very much, Ethan. I agree with the premise of the question. On policy, I agree with most things, the other candidates up here believe and will say. But I think it comes down to fundamental values. My campaign has been based around the idea that if our state wants to keep moving forward instead of moving backward, that we have to make real changes, that we have to elect leaders who don't look like most elected officials, who don't come to the same background as most elected officials. And I think that, you know, it's like I said in the last question, there are very clear differences between myself and the other four candidates up here. So the narrative that we're all the same, it's a flawed narrative and it's one that I wish wasn't pushed so much. I am running to be the changed candidate and I think that's a message that's resonating with Vermonters, but I think that's what differentiates me. Great, thank you. James. I'm gonna agree with Ethan on that one. I do think there are some substantive differences so I appreciate the opportunity. Like Senator Rogers, I think life experience matters quite a bit. I grew up in a single parent household, raised with my grandfather's union death benefit. He died in the line of duty as a firefighter and I was willing and have been ever since to do whatever it took to get ahead, to provide for myself. I've worked as a farmer, I've worked as a logger, I've worked as a middle school science teacher, I've worked as a line cook and I've been asked to lead failing businesses which I've turned around and my leadership ability is diverse and it's nearly 30 years running at this point and on a policy basis I think that translates into the fact I've come into this event tonight with proposals to double the childcare, assistance program, free tuition for not just people willing to pick up a firearm but also for our public sector employees as well as a bank franchise tax to make that possible, these all come with numbers and importantly, as the governor always likes to give lip service to the importance of veterans, we are going to work in partnership with the legislature to ensure that veterans' pensions are not taxed. Thank you very much, Christine. You know, I think, I will tell you right now, Vermont needs more than just a nice guy governor. With everything that's happening out of Washington and the economics we're facing in our state, we need a bold and courageous leader and I think you will see I have a long history of bold and courageous leadership. In my 40 plus years in Vermont, I've served on school board, chair of mental health board, town moderator for five years, on all the business groups, Vermont Business Roundtable, 12 years on the Memorial Economic Development Board. I've kind of done it all and I've done that all out of civic commitment. I think, you know, the most important thing that you can do is do a deep dive on the resume and look at the history. You know, we're sitting here talking about what we do and what we're committed to and I call that the job interview. Vermonters are interviewing the candidates right now. What everybody needs to do afterwards is do the resume check and the background check and I think you will see that I have a long history of a courageous leadership and especially in the area of economy. You know, I'm going to focus on an economy and we're going to measure that economy based on how the bottom 20% are doing. If you look at what's happened today and it started a long time ago, there's been a system of attack on the middle class and if the minimum wage adjusted for inflation today, that would be $22 an hour. So we've got this long history and you need somebody with a long courageous vision to move forward and fix this over time as well. Thank you very much. We hear a lot about Vermont's struggling labor force and Vermont's struggles to build up its population, keep its population level. So what would each of you do if elected governor to attract a workforce, more workers here, attract young families here and attract young people here and we'll start with Senator Rogers. Well, I'm going to disagree a little with the need for more people. I think one of the biggest threats facing the earth is too many people on the planet today. It's driving climate change. It's driving the pollution of our air, water and soil. These are essentials for life. If we don't have clean air, water and soil, then there's going to be no life left here. My idea is to try to grow from within. I don't think we're going to encourage a lot of big businesses to come here. We have high energy costs. We have high tax costs. Act 250 is hard for businesses to get through. My idea is to focus more on our institutions, the higher learning, especially our state colleges and work with them to figure out how to connect kids to state colleges and then build maker spaces and incubator spaces around those state colleges. When kids come out of those colleges, they have a lot of great ideas. Even after they've gone away and worked for a business a few years, they have the great ideas that are going to be the next big inventions and the next big manufacturing. We can grow it right here. The other thing we need to do is focus on the trades. Average tradesperson is about 56 years old now and you can make a good living in the trades. We need to start using our tech centers and creating apprenticeship programs to get more people into the trades. Otherwise, Vermonters are not going to be able to find somebody to fix their toilet or build their house or fix the lights in their house. We really need to focus on that. Thank you very much, Ethan. I think that Vermont's economy has real struggles. And I think the way we do it is we get our young people to stay here and we bring young people who have left back. But we can't force them to come back. We have to make it so that they want to come here. And here's how I think we're going to do it. We're going to provide incentives for small, sustainable businesses to come here in our urban areas. We're going to develop business in our rural areas by increasing access to broadband and by building infrastructure. We're going to raise the minimum wage so that young people, when they come here, they feel like they have a real shot of success in our state. We're going to improve and increase access to vocational training so that even if you don't want to go to college, you can still find a job that will make you a productive part of a community here in Vermont. And I think that the most important thing we can do is build this image of Vermont as a state that is open and welcoming. And I think it all comes down to making sure that there's opportunity here, that there are jobs here and that people see life in Vermont and they aspire to it. Thank you very much, James. Standard, the foundation that our administration is going to govern from is one of investing in people and protecting the planet. Young people want good schools, access to higher education, childcare, healthcare. And so that's why our platform is a People First platform and we'll be putting forward when the session opens a People's First proposal that reignites the universal healthcare discussion that puts forward our proposal to ask the most affluent in this state to support our investment in childcare assistance program, as well as offering property tax relief. And our proposal to exempt veterans pensions from taxation will also attract young people. Most people don't necessarily think of people retiring, but 20 years in the service, when you go in at 17 or 18, you're out at 37 years old and that's, at least in my eyes, that's still pretty young. So I think when we invest in our community and we invest in our people instead of these $10,000 gimmicks, which I feel are an enormous insult to Vermonters here who could use that for debt forgiveness, for school loans, and a governor that supports unions like the nurses strike. We have, it's absolutely horrendous that we have healthcare professionals who cannot even afford to live in the community they work in. Thank you very much. Christine. You know, getting connected to the internet at high speed is probably one of the most important things we can do and it's fundamental. And I say that boldly because I spent 10 years on an advisory committee that oversees the electric delivery for all of rural America. And Vermon is a microcosm of the problems we're seeing in rural America. You know, we're seeing increasing rates of poverty, flights to the city and aging demographic. We saw the exact same thing that happened in the 1930s. And in that point was when the cities had electricity and rural America did not. Today we're facing the digital divide. And this, we've carried out this models in areas of rural America, third the density of Vermont and successfully connected every home and business fiber optic cable and change the demographics. And I'm going to use farms as an example. You know, as an example of how this connectivity can benefit because I will tell you you can't run your business today without being connected. And 60% of Vermont is connected with a rotting fiber infrastructure, a rotting copper infrastructure. It needs to be replaced fiber. But if you're, if you're working, we have the dairy problem where we're producing 30% more milk than we did in the 1960s. We can offer farmers the opportunity to move to more value added finished products. You know, and if you look at that, we have an example that works today. The maple industry built this excellent distribution system. We're selling maple products to Japan. Think about, you know, Sally's dairy and Sally's starting to grow blueberries to make a finished product like blueberry jam using an example like the Hardwick Food Hub. Now this blueberry jam, which is GMO free, organic, and a Vermont brand can be sold all over the world. So now you've got a regular income with a higher margin product that will benefit the farmers. Thank you very much. Brenda. We of course need to do things like pass and sign the legislation that Phil Scott vetoed this year that would attract families to our state because our families can't, if they can't live here they can't be here and that includes when he's undermining our education system. We need to make sure that we're supporting and promoting it but we also can move more quickly to 90 to 100% renewable energy. This is what we need for the environment and it's also how we build jobs within this state. That has flatlined a little bit our job growth in that area and what we need to do is make sure we're building it back up so that we are creating those jobs for people to be here and the added benefit is that it also reaches a lot of the issues that people in poverty have in our state. When you're doing renewable energy correctly, you are also reaching energy cost issues within our state for people who are struggling with poverty. That's a big piece of my platform as well as making sure that we are building up our economy from the bottom and we're utilizing those resources that exist in our state and connecting them to our businesses. That is when people have money in their pockets and small businesses are able to hire and farms are able to hire and arts organizations are able to hire and our state employees are able to have a sustainable living. We need to make sure that we are doing what it takes to put money in people's pockets so that they then can grow their jobs, their businesses and we can help them with that because the local economy is an extremely important part of Vermont's economy. Thank you. I'm gonna bring in a reader question. This comes from Mary Alice Bisbee in Montpelier. She writes, almost all of you say you're for single-payer healthcare with universal coverage. Please explain what you mean by this and how you would go about getting there. If you do not believe in single-payer, how else would you address the crisis of affordability in healthcare? And we'll start with Ethan. Here's what I've advocated since day one. I think that Medicare for all will work best if it is streamlined at a federal level. So the day I take off as governor, I'm gonna start pushing for a public option. And if it looks like, if we're three months in and it looks like Congress isn't gonna get anywhere on Medicare for all, then we'll take action here. But I do strongly believe that this will work best if it's a federal program. It will be more streamlined, it will be more affordable and it'll be easier for people who move or who have roots in more than one state. But I do think that healthcare should not be something that you either get or you don't based on your socioeconomic status. That's ridiculous. And some of the stories you read, they feel draconian. I think that we have to look at communities that are hurting. We have to look at people who don't have insurance. We have to look at people who can't go to a doctor until they are in a serious critical condition. And I think that it's inhumane that we would keep perpetuating a system like this where if you have a good job with good wages, you can see a doctor anytime you want. But if you don't, then you're locked out of the healthcare system. So I would like to take action as soon as we could and go to Medicare for all as soon as we know it's not gonna happen federally. Thank you very much, James. Xander. Mary Alice, thank you for the good question and the opportunity. For years, I was with the Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility Government Policy Team advocating for single payer. In reality, right now, what we would be looking for is an all payer model given the federal government's involvement with Medicare, Medicaid, the various veterans programs, the ERISA plans. But for me, we can't wait for the federal government to sort this out. And I believe that if we eliminate the insurance companies from this equation, then we could get the equivalent of an all payer model right here in Vermont. And I'm prepared to reignite that conversation as soon as the session, before the session opens, frankly, so that we're all ready to start pulling in that same direction. The notion that Vermonters can't afford healthcare and that we as a society can't afford it, that's ridiculous. When we say we wanna attract young people, we wanna retain people here, universal healthcare is that economic development tool. And so I feel very well positioned, very well grounded, and very confident in my ability to bring us all together. Even Governor Scott said that there's advantages in expanding the pool. And he did so forced into a corner around education spending. Thank you very much, Christine. Yeah, as soon as I become governor, the first thing I would focus on is encouraging the legislature to get a universal primary care bill on my desk as soon as possible. Because I know, and I can show the numbers, the universal primary care based on what they worked, they were doing this last year will pay for itself. Now, I am an advocate of moving to an improved Medicare for all system. In the United States, we spend 18 cents of every dollar on healthcare. The European country spent eight or nine cents, obviously that's a better answer. In Vermont, we spent 31% of our healthcare dollar on administrative costs, Medicare is 5%. So obviously that's what we need to work to. Now, Vermont made some progress heading down this path, but we got in trouble because it was a small state. I would work with other states to form a union to accomplish this because there are many other states who want to accomplish this goal. And I should tell you that the end goal, and I encourage all voters, do not take no for an answer. We know there are better systems. This is about all of us. I don't take no for an answer. And the idea that we're profiting off of people sick and dying is such a flawed model, we're the only industrialized nation in the world. But I will start by working with the union with other states to get there. Thank you, Brenda. We need to move more quickly to funding, fully funding Act 48. I do not favor the all payer model in part because it was rolled out in such a way that we used Medicaid, people on Medicaid to low income the poor people as guinea pigs as if the lives of the people who are poor don't matter. We contested on them because it is, because they are poor, because they don't have a choice. And they were selected that way. I find that to be abhorrent, to be honest. And Act 48 is already on the books and I do believe that it was abandoned too quickly and we need to find a way to fully fund it. Whether it's with collaboration with other states or within our own state, I do believe that we do have a path forward in universal healthcare within our state and we know one thing, which is that nothing is gonna change in the national government this particular minute. And when states lead, that is when we see real changes in Washington. We can't continue to be afraid to lead. Vermont used to be such a strong leader across this nation. And one thing that we can do is we can lead in areas such as healthcare, such as the environment, such as a tax and regulate system for cannabis. We have this opportunity here and if we don't use it, we're not doing what it takes to make a Vermont that's working for everyone and we're not doing what it takes to build a strong economy within our state and make sure that all of us are able to be prosperous when we live here. Senator Rogers. I don't believe that Vermont can do it on its own. If you look at the numbers nationally and as Christine alluded to, we're the only industrialized nation that doesn't take care of our people and it's absolutely absurd. But we're already taken care of about 60% of the population with taxpayer funded healthcare. If you look at your veterans, your Medicare, your Medicaid, police, federal employees, state employees, the list goes on and on. Those folks already have healthcare paid for by tax dollars. So really we're only looking at about 40% of the population that we've got to come up with the extra money for. And I understand that with the current administration, it's not going to happen. With the way our federal government is right now, it's not going to happen. But I don't think Vermont can go it alone. If there was a big enough pool of states that could collaborate, there's a good chance that we could pull it off. But I think Pete Shumlin was really invested in it. And if it could have worked, I think he would have got it to work. And I think everybody realized when the numbers were crunched that Vermont is too small to go it alone. Thank you. Do you think that Vermont needs to change the way that it funds its education system? And if you do think that that's the case, how would you change it, James? Yes, I do think we need to do that. I think that we need to move to the income tax. It is the fair, more progressive manner that will give relief to lower income people, particularly people on fixed incomes, whose home is their financial security and are unable to keep up with property taxes. You know, the universal healthcare question you just asked, that plays into education funding enormously. That is a big part of school expense is the healthcare involved. And so once again, I disagree with some of my colleagues here at the table. I do think we can afford it. I know that I alone, for my family, I pay 14,000 in premiums and other 6,000 in deductibles. And that's even, I don't even get everything covered that I need to get covered. So $20,000, we looked at the numbers. It was the insurance companies that don't like the idea. And if there's efficiencies in a larger pool, even as Governor Scott says, we can get the other 40% of our monitors negotiate on behalf of all of those people together. And that is gonna help fund our schools. But to your specific question, yes, the income tax. Thank you, Christine. Yeah, if you look at the idea of a property tax-funded monitor for education, it's been flawed from the beginning. It was put together in World War II. And it really has caused the division. And at the national level, it really is, we did this redlining, which kept the green areas for basically one group of folks and the red line folks couldn't get access. Vermont has a smaller problem because town by town, things are quite different. Different in terms of our economics and our ability to support our education system. But I wanna point, so yes, I do believe we need to take a deep dive and look how we're funding it. But I will say, let me just take an opportunity to talk about the way the governor is attacking the education system. Barking orders out of Montpelier, coming up with arbitrary metrics and that beating up the teachers and the school board is not gonna get us where we need to be. And when I talk about economic development in Vermont, closing community schools will exacerbate the problem where we have the shifting demographics because if we close those community schools, we're gonna end up people not moving to those towns. So we can optimize the schools in smaller towns and we really need to move to community-based solutions on this because in one school, elementary school might have another elementary school five miles away and maybe they're willing to close that school. But meanwhile, you got other towns where you'd have to bust the kids for 20 miles. So maybe the better answer there is to optimize the existing infrastructure by offering the wraparound services such as pediatric care, mental health services, daycare services all in one building. So I say let's rise up above the education budget itself and look at the entire budget and how we can optimize it to provide better services for our rural schools. And that'll help our economy. Brenda. I do favor moving towards an income tax, but it needs to have a measure for non-residential property tax and in order for them to pay into education as well. We also can use the ACLU's plan to reduce half of the prison population and that money can be rolled back into education as well as I'm really glad that Christine has bought into my idea that's been there since the beginning of centralizing services closer to schools. I'm really excited to see that happen. What that does is allow families that need access to those services to have easier access to those services and then teachers who are usually burdened as being social workers are then able to be focused on teaching which then allows all of our kids to get a much stronger education system. I think we start with centralizing those services which has the added benefit of helping to keep small schools open. Small schools are the economic centers of our town when we begin to move kids outside of our small schools then outside of those towns we're asking families to drive further which increases our environmental impact. We're asking families to work outside and people to work outside of that town which now you're hurting the economy, the local economies of our small towns. So we really have to find a solution for education funding that does not put a burden, a stronger burden on our small towns. Thank you, Senator Rogers. I didn't support Act 46 and actually put a proposal on the table to take its place and my proposal was basically starting with the statewide average which at that time was 14,000 and change per people average. And if you wanted to spend more than that in your community you would have to come up with that extra money on your local school tax and pay a 25% penalty back to the Ed fund. If you spent less than that you would get to reduce your property, your school property tax. What that is is a carrot and a stick. The problem we have in this state is we've got some very high spending towns. We've got towns that are spending over $20,000 a kid and that is just too much to spend on a K-12 education. We've also got a lot of small schools that are doing an excellent job and given the kids a good education for a very reasonable amount, a bunch of them for less than the statewide average. In my hometown of Glover we've had a tremendous influx of young families because of that, because the school system is very good, operates last I knew right under the statewide average. But the other thing we've got to recognize and I follow Governor Scott on his treatment of the education establishment. I mean, it used to be you were just teaching kids math and science and English. Now, with the opiate epidemic and various drug problems, a ton of kids have been born with drug addiction issues and broken families. Those teachers in schools are asked to be much more than just teachers. They're social workers, healthcare workers, parents and everything else for those kids. Thank you very much, Ethan. I think of education as your issue, I'm your candidate. I do support moving to an income tax-based system. I think that it's how we make the education funding system more fair. I think it's how we make it easier for individuals to navigate as they pay their taxes. And I think the speaker's plan is a good way to get there. I think on individual, I think each school should be treated as an individual. I think every school has different needs and every school district has a different budget. And so I think that beyond the income tax-based funding system, we should enable school districts to have more control provided there is state government oversight. Thank you. Do you think that the governor and the legislature in the last legislative session went far enough to restrict the state's gun laws? And if not, how much further would you go if you were elected or seek to go? First of all, I wanna commend the legislature for passing the legislation they did pass. And I wanna commend the governor for signing it. I think that was a bold move and I'm proud of the work that was done. I think we've got enough work over the next two years to actually successfully carry out those changes. We've gotta put the processes, procedures, and the support in place in order to make it work. And for example, the red flag rule, we've gotta provide the protocols for the law enforcement officers and the mental health people. And I spoke to the law enforcement officers, they say, look, we need to know how to make these decisions, what to base these decisions on. We're gonna be quite conservative if we don't have the protocols laid out. So I think we've got a ton of work to do in the next two years to just carry out what was done. So I'm satisfied with what was done and I'm proud of Vermont for what we've done. Thank you, Brenda. I watched that legislation go through. I sat in chambers and watched in both the Senate and the House. And I was really proud to see it happen. I think it was an excellent first step. I think that it is essential. Look, I have students and friends who are hunters, who are gun owners, and they aren't bad people. That's not the issue here. And they can continue to own their guns while we're still taking measures to make Vermont safer. And so I think one of the things that we need to do is recognize that these first steps, these first measures were an excellent first step and what could be done currently in this legislative session. And I was there, I watched the governor sign those bills and it was an excellent act of bravery, though I am not in the camp that believes that that one act of bravery earns him a second term. Senator Rogers. I actually supported two of the safety bills, 221 and 442, which I think will make a difference. I did not support S55. That is a bill that does take away Vermonters constitutional rights and no good has ever come from taking rights from good people. The constitution is a fabric and we start tearing at one piece of it and the rest of it's gonna fall apart as well. I think if we truly want safety, the folks who voted in favor of S55 didn't give up any rights. It's easy to vote somebody else's rights away. If we truly want safety, then let's look at the First Amendment. Maybe we should give the government and law enforcement access to everybody's phones and computers and license plate readers and facial recognition and that would make everybody safer. But I don't think we're willing to give up our First Amendment rights for that. So I'm a strong second amendment proponent and I think alls we did is turn law-abiding citizens into criminals and in my history in the state house, starting in the house, I have worked to reduce prison overcrowding and keep people who are not violent and dangerous to society out of prison. We've just created a new offense that has jail time connected to it. Ethan. I think that it's absolutely crucial that we move towards more school safety. I was a legislative page this late winter and early spring. My second day as a page was the Parkland School shooting and my last day as a page was the day the governor signed S-55. I think that we need stronger gun regulations but beyond all the policy specifics, what we have to get past to the state is this argument that everyone who supports stronger gun regulations is a flat lander. But it's ridiculous that you can just paint anyone who disagrees with you as unpatriotic or someone who's not really from Vermont. I've lived here my entire life. I support stronger gun regulations. I come from a community that values the second amendment but it doesn't mean the second amendment. We always forget about the part in the second amendment that says that well-regulated militias have the right to bear arms. School shooters are not well-regulated militias. People who are stockpiling assault weapons are not well-regulated militias. People who have guns for the sole purpose of this fantasy that they someday may need to overthrow the government, that's not a well-regulated militia. And I think we have to move to a system where we put safety first. And I think it means we tackle mental health issues. I think it means we tackle school safety issues. And I think it means we tackle gun issues because we know that as much as the person pulls the trigger, the trigger pulls the person. Thank you, James. This is an unresolved issue, one that I'm eager to work on. I'd mentioned at the outset the opportunity to bridge the two Vermonts. I think you, we're all hearing that right here. A very differing point of view. This is a really important issue for me, having four children, four young children, to in school, to entering the school system this coming fall. You know, it comes down to leadership once again. I could not, for the life of me, understand that Governor Scott, having been in office for as long as he had, had never considered the leadership response to this. And his actions caused just incredible divisive atmosphere, acrimonious atmosphere, mentioning people who felt like their rights were being taken away from them while the rights of my children to feel safe in school, who are still being traumatized with active shooter drills that even Ethan has to do. I don't agree that it was courageous. I think it was politically expedient. We've already heard the Governor's campaign people talking about how this is gonna pick up moderate Democrat votes. And at the end of the day, we still don't have safer schools. We have law-abiding citizens who are concerned. We have law enforcement who are stretched. Having been a school teacher, a special educator, we have a lot more work to do on this issue. Thank you. I'm going to do a question that came in from a caller. I am an EMT in the Northeast Kingdom. Two squads here folded in the last six months. Right now, we need support for emergency medical personnel. What will candidates do? I started with you last time, Christina. Brenda. We need to be working much more quickly towards a stronger healthcare system. And to me, that includes making sure that we are funding or working with private companies who are, I would prefer actually for us not to be working, for it to be more state-run, but EMT, including EMTs, especially with such a serious opioid epidemic going on right now. I can, it is reaching every single corner of our state and we can't have our EMTs folding. We need to make sure that they are accessible and available for people who are sick, who are having heart attacks, who are having an active overdose. We can't allow that to, and that this is the first that I've heard of this. So I haven't formulated a plan to build back up the EMTs because that is the first that I've heard of the EMTs folding, but I will definitely be going back and looking at that and making sure that I fold that into my plan for healthcare and my plan for the opioid epidemic. Thank you, Senator Rodger. Yeah, emergency services are a problem all over the state, especially in the rural areas. They count on volunteers and these folks have to put a huge number of hours into training as well as being on call overnight and on weekends and at all times. My wife was actually EMT on the ambulance for years and she's a registered nurse and even being a registered nurse working in the hospital every day if she does not serve on the ambulance any longer because she couldn't keep up with the continuing education credit she needed to serve there. So we really have to look at that structure and we want people to be well-educated and well-qualified but I think we overburden them with asking too much of them for time in. These are professionals that have extensive experience and knowledge and we've got to make it easier for people to be volunteers and I think we're going to have to, unfortunately, I think we're going to have to figure out how the state starts helping some of those folks financially because they just can't provide the services and they're not only providing the services for their community, when people are passing through, when there's tourists in the area, if somebody gets hurt, they're providing that service. We have JP and Burke Mountain in our area when people are skiing or biking or any kind of adventuring and they get hurt, those local emergency services are what take care of those people and get them to the hospital. So hugely important. Thank you, Ethan. I think that support for healthcare professionals is something that unites everyone at this table. As far as I know, we've all spoken out in support of the UVM nurses and I think that's an issue that carries here. I think that my whole campaign has been about putting people first and I think that this is an important thing we can do. Emergency service professionals, EMTs, paramedics, they save lives and if our state government isn't looking out for them, then we're fundamentally failing. I think that we need, the state needs to be there. I think for too long, state government has ignored places in the state. And I think that until we are willing to go to these communities and have a conversation, we can't really understand the issue. So I think we need to stand with emergency services because, I mean, they're doing what they're doing on a public surface. They don't, I mean, I'm not a paramedic so I can't speak for them, but I don't think they find it fun. I think they do it because they know it needs to be done. And I think that until we are a state government that stands with workers, that stands with people who go to dangerous places and who wake up in the middle of the night and go save lives, then our state government, even doing enough to help these people. Thank you. James. Xander, this is another example of an economy that we're living in that exploits people. The issue of privatizing or folding emergency services in the state is one that's been going on for some time. It's not just ambulance services. It's fire departments, communities have folded their police departments and are contracting with the Vermont State Police who are also understaffed and under-resourced. And so this is an issue that I have been involved in and will continue to be involved in. And I'm going to ask the resorts, for example, that Senator Rogers mentioned, to pay their fair share. We as a group were in Ludwell recently. They are having trouble funding their emergency services. The Vale Mountain Corporation had $256 million in profits last quarter. And so if those 1,400 people that work, making those profits for that company had dignified wages from one job, they'd be able to volunteer. And we're going to incentivize people to volunteer by offering those people free tuition and the state is going to step in and ask those who are profiting off of our people, off of our communities to pay their fair share. Christine. You know, as the leader of Vermont Electric Co-op, Vermont's largest locally owned electric utility, I ran a company of first responders. And I'll tell you the story. When I came to the Co-op and I accepted the job from the board of directors, I walked out into our worst storm in history. That was October 2005. In 2005, we pretty much were on our own until we figured out how to get some coordination across the state. Over the years, the state's done an incredible job of improving how we respond to storms. And when I say for first responders, we coordinated with the emergency services and fire and others and police because our folks were out there first. And we built a network. We have a protocol today where when there's a major storm, we all get on the phone together and we identify where the problems are and address the resources there. That model can be mirrored in terms of how we do emergency response. This problem looks to me like a mirror of what we saw in terms of our emergency response to storms. I think the state does an excellent job with storm response. We can do an excellent job at emergency response. And I have a lot of thoughts around that around radio and all the other things that helped us get there. If elected, what would be your approach in the ongoing opioid crisis that the state is facing? United States has a 40 or 50 year history of a failed drug policy. I think one of the things Vermont should do is look at the Portugal model. What Portugal did was decriminalize all drugs and set up clinics to start helping drug addicts. So if you had a drug addiction problem, you could go and you could get drugs and clean needles and have healthcare folks helping you. You had available treatment options. They reduced their addiction over 50% by instituting that model. And I think after 40 years of failure, we've got to do something bold. We have a serious issue that's affecting families across the socioeconomic spectrum. And I think it's time to change course. I know a lot of people, it kind of freaks them out to hear that and to hear about the safe injection sites. But both the Portugal model and the safe injection sites have shown great results in getting people into treatment sooner and providing better outcomes. Thank you, Ethan. I think I support overdose prevention sites. I understand their concerns, but it's imperative that we recognize that withdrawal is a real thing. We're not talking about people going to get their fix. We are talking about people who are in real medical crisis going to seek medical attention. And I think that the stigma around opioids and the partisan politics, we have to recognize that people are dying and we're not doing enough because people on one side are too busy trying to portray themselves as law and order and people on the other side are too busy trying to avoid looking like they're bleeding hearts. We have to get beyond politics and solve this crisis. We have to provide access to things like counseling and community resources for people who are struggling with addiction. We have to support overdose prevention sites and we have to make sure that they're accessible to everyone in the state no matter how rural it is where they live. I think that we absolutely need to keep pushing on this issue. It's just as much a healthcare issue as is a crime issue. And I think that unless you are trying to find justice on this issue, then you're doing it wrong because if you just keep throwing people in jail cells then we're not making any real lasting progress. We find a short-term fix for that one specific individual but we have to take on addiction as a whole and as a devise. Thank you, James. Zander, thank you. I disagree with my friend Ethan that it's as much a crime issue. It's a crime issue because that's how we've treated it as a society and I think we need to treat it solely as a healthcare issue, as a mental health issue, as a state of our economy. And so Senator Rogers mentions Portugal. Brenda has been a fierce advocate since her campaign started raising awareness around this issue. We have to treat our fellow Vermonters like the human beings they are. And so if overdose prevention centers keep Vermonters alive, I question anyone who's opposed to that. If in many cases it's a class issue. I was in the old North End today speaking to a woman who was an active heroin user who felt like if she was rich, she could get the help she needed and nobody would look down on her. But because she lived in the old North End that if she went and asked for help, she was gonna find herself also in the criminal justice system where we already know that low income people do not get the same justice that the wealthy do. Thank you, Christine. Well, I'm gonna start by identifying what doesn't work and what does work. And I encourage anybody out there to go watch the movie, The House I Live In. It's a story about the fact we've spent a trillion dollars on Richard Nixon declared the war on drugs. We haven't changed drug use at all and we've really just targeted families and pretty much that's been racial targeting. Now let's talk about what does work. Last year we had the lowest smoking rates in the nation. We didn't make tobacco illegal. We did education, we talked about access, we regulated it, we controlled it. So that worked. I also will tell you I spent the afternoon with Grace Keller at the Howard Safe Recovery Center and I learned a lot. That's the needle exchange in Burlington. If those of you, 10 years ago, you remember we had a problem with needles on the street. Last year they exchanged 300,000 needles and they only found 81 on the streets and the Howard Center folks picked them all up. So virtually eliminating needles on the street. Now let me tell you another more interesting fact. Dirty needles cause six heart valve replacements per year. It's, they're 620,000 each. That's 3.7 million. And that can be offset through a clean needle exchange. Her budget is 420,000. So we can definitely spend more money and have a full-time nurse available in order to provide people immediate help when they need it. Thank you. About three weeks ago I released a four-part plan to heal the opioid epidemic. It includes harm reduction first and right now our Harm Reduction Center Safe Recovery to fully operate would need about $600,000. We could have implement that in every single county and spend only half of what I've allocated out of tax and regulate system, which tax and regulate brings a conservative estimate of $25 million. So $15 million is what I've allocated for the beginning of my opioid plan. Half of that can be used to implement harm reduction centers all around our state. And these include needle exchanges, fentanyl testing strips, overdose prevention sites, as well as Narcan, an unlimited Narcan, because in some parts of our state you can only have one, and it sometimes takes up to three to stop an active overdose. We also then can move to the criminal justice system where there are some measures we can take, like decriminalizing street buprenorphine, non-prescribed buprenorphine, which is a life-saving drug. We get to do that and there's a couple of aspects that can be used right away. We also need to move to having treatment courts in every single county. We also must have treatment on demand and medically assisted treatment on demand as well as dual diagnosis support. What I know is that my nephew had been sober for a year. This system destabilized him. We can do better in this state and we must do better in this state because not only are our children dying, but their friends are losing people to heroin overdoses so much that they now have rituals around the death of their friends. We cannot allow that to be acceptable. Thank you very much. I think we're running out of time, so I did wanna ask one more question before we go into closing statements. Just if we keep this brief 30 seconds or so, where do you stand on a tax and regulate proposal now that we've legalized marijuana, recreational use? And who did I begin with last time? I forget. John. So we'll start with Ethan. I do support tax and regulate. I think that if we're gonna legalize marijuana, we need to do it right. I think that until we're bringing revenue through marijuana, then the system is putting out more money than it's making. And that's not sound fiscal policy. And I think that the other important part of taxation of marijuana is regulation of marijuana. We need to make sure that we are not getting marijuana that's laced with any other much more harmful drugs. We need to make sure we're getting marijuana only to people who it's legal for, because I understand that that is a real concern. That if it's, you know, they're on the streets and people who legally aren't eligible to consume it will be able to access it. Thank you, Ethan. Just have to move on. James. I thought the law that was signed last year, again, showed Governor Scott's lack of leadership. The legalization of cannabis then should have been with a tax and regulate system. And so that will be a priority for me to create a system that supports a local organic cannabis industry that fully funds education for drug education, prevention, and the needs of law enforcement. Thank you, Christine. Yeah, I'm going to address this from a safety perspective. The other thing I learned when I spent the afternoon with Grace Keller at the Howard Safer Recovery Center is that we're getting marijuana in the state today that's cut with fentanyl. We have a very dangerous situation. We need to move tax and regulate as quickly as possible so people can trust the source of where this come from. We're in a bad place right now. Brenda. I understand, as a mom of a teenager, that there are moms and dads out there that are concerned that their kids will then be able to get cannabis. I ask them to reflect on whether or not their teenager already knows where to get cannabis, because I would propose that they probably do. And this allows children to be a lot safer. It also is an economic opportunity for our state and for our small farms, the ones who would like to grow cannabis and hemp. And it allows us to bring in between $25 and $75 million from the sale of cannabis alone. And that doesn't include the tourism industry. And that doesn't include the money that comes into our local businesses. It's exceptionally important that we understand that this issue is one of the very many issues that can actually move our state forward. Thank you, Senator Rogers. I absolutely support a tax and regulate system. It needs to be done on a Vermont scale. What I don't want to see is large companies coming from Colorado and California and trying to corner the market. Needs to be very limited in size to like 500 square feet so that Vermonters can get permit to grow. And hopefully it benefits Vermonters and Vermont farmers. We don't need big corporations coming in here and taking it over. OK. Now we're going to do closing statements. We're going to start with Ethan. I want to thank Channel 17 and VT Digger for hosting tonight. I also want to thank my opponent for participating. I think that we face a lot of issues as a state. And we need a candidate who's really willing to go to Montpelier and shake things up. That's what my whole campaign has been about. A candidate that is willing to make change and fight for people who can't lobby for themselves in Montpelier and can't make big campaign contributions. Our campaign is about making sure that when government gets down to it, we are making people's lives better. And it all comes back to that Vermont dream of strong communities with strong values. I think that ultimately, I laid out clear differences between myself and my opponents tonight. And I hope that come August 14, I'll have your vote because we have to run a different kind of candidate against Phil Scott. And we can beat him, but we need to make sure that we are running the right candidate and the one with the understanding of policy and the willingness to go to communities that typically vote Republican and talk to them about issues that matter. Thank you. Senator Rogers. Yes, I'd like to thank Digger and Channel 17 for inviting me and holding this. It's been a great evening. I am the one with the legislative experience. And I've always been a collaborator, not basing my decisions on party, but listening to the facts with an open mind and trying to make good decisions for Vermonters. And I think that's what really sets me apart from the others. Just to touch back on the gun issue, I really think S-55 went too far. I don't think it made Vermonters any safer. We lost a close friend this year to domestic violence in Orleans to her husband. Another young lady from the Northeast Kingdom was killed in Barry by her boyfriend. Didn't know her, but my kids did and comes from a wonderful family. A young lady killed here in Burlington by her boyfriend. All killed by the person who supposedly loved them. S-55 did nothing to help those women. We've got to address suicide. We've got to address domestic violence. We've got to stop focusing on the tool. None of those deaths were caused by a so-called large capacity magazine. None of those deaths were caused by a so-called assault rifle. And so we need to stop focusing on the tool and start focusing on how we make Vermonters safe without taking law-abiding citizens' constitutional rights away from them. Thank you, Brenda. We need to redefine leadership in Montpelier. We are seeing right now a governor who has 17 years in the state house and is not a leader at all. What we need is to make sure that we have someone who has executive leadership experience as myself and also as a community organizer can bring people together and can build from the bottom up. We need to see new voices. That is how we begin to build a really strong economy. That is how we begin to promote our strong education system. That is how we heal the opioid epidemic and transform our transportation system. We have to make sure that every single voice is at the table and in order to do that, we don't need another CEO. We do not need people in the legislature. We need to allow new voices to come in at every level of leadership, work with our legislators, our incredible legislators and an equal branch of government and make sure that we are building a Vermont that is working for everyone. The only way to do that is if we redefine our leadership. Christine. You know, I talk about how much I love Vermont and I'll tell you why I love Vermont because we've always been a leader in civil rights. We've always been a leader in environmental issues and we're showing the rest of the country how to do good democracy and I'm very proud of that. And I should tell you that I had two wonderful parents. My dad was a great engineer, taught me a lot. My mom was a social activist. I grew up and had an excellent career. I raised three wonderful Vermonters and I live in the most beautiful state in the union. So you would think with all of that that would be enough. But all this time I lived with a deep secret. And when I reached my late 40s because we based our relationship with our children on trust and honesty, I began to feel so guilty that I decided I would come clean with this truth. And I was sure I was gonna lose my job. I was sure I was gonna lose everything I worked for but the truth was more important. On December 2nd, 2015, my transition from man to woman and Vermonters welcomed me with open arms. And that to me was a miracle. But I realized that miracle didn't happen without the work of thousands of Vermonters before me. And that's why I'm committed, I loved my job. I loved my work. But I know that people gave up a lot more before me for fighting for what is right and what is just. So I will tell you that I'm not gonna cower in front of the headwinds from Washington. And I'm gonna fight hard for the Vermont that I love and that has loved me in return because I know that nothing is impossible when you're on the side of justice. Thank you, James. This race is about us. Everyone who's working harder, working longer for less. Everyone worried about being able to afford their property taxes. Everyone worried about being able to have access to healthcare. Worried about being able to care for their child and hold down a job. So one year ago, I decided to enter this race when no one thought that Phil Scott was beatable because I knew he had to be beat. He had to be beat. We don't get to choose the times, the times choose us. And I'm bringing my life of public service, my extensive legislative experience both in Montpelier and in Washington, D.C. to make sure that the governor's office serves the people of Vermont, not corporate interest, not a handful of affluent donors. So I ask, if this message resonates with you, please join with this grassroots campaign. Make history. We unseated a one-term governor before with a Navy veteran from Winooski. I'm looking forward to doing it again. That's our debate. Thank you so much for joining us.