 Good morning, everyone. Thank you all for being here on such short notice, as I know you reached out with some questions, so I wanted to get everyone together. I wanted to briefly reflect on my recent decisions on H57 and the S169. I know these decisions are still on the minds of many. As you know, Monday I signed H57, a bill that protects reproductive rights in Vermont. Like many Vermonters, I believe in a woman's right to make their own healthcare choices, and the government should not interfere. The legislation that I did sign affirms what is already allowable in Vermont. It protects reproductive rights and ensures those decisions remain between a woman and her healthcare provider. For these reasons, I believe it was a weird sign this bill, even though I know we don't all agree and some are disappointed. I also know there is disappointment over my decision to veto S169. I understand and accept that, but let me be clear. There is and will continue to be tremendous work to make our communities safer, to protect our citizens, and to prevent tragedies like suicides and other acts of violence. I want to take a moment to go through some of the initiatives outlined after the Fairhaven incident in my February 2018 memo to the legislature and where we've made some progress. In the area of gun safety and supply, last year I called for in the legislature passed a package of historic gun safety reforms. These measures included extreme risk protection orders which gave families the tools to remove guns from those who may harm themselves or others, allowing law enforcement to remove firearm from those accused of domestic violence, increasing the age to buy a firearm from 18 to 21, expanding mandatory background check requirements, banning bump stocks and prohibiting the purchase of high-capacity magazines and more. It also called for and we implemented a school safety audit and $5 million in grants for safety infrastructure for schools. And importantly, it advocated for focus on improving the health and mental health of our citizens. In this category, we propose and have made some progress in addressing capacity needs at mental health facilities and increasing investment for DCF and support of young kids impacted by opioids. My administration has recommended increased funding for mental health outreach workers, boots on the ground, so to speak, in high-need communities, as well as home visit programs with a focus on families impacted by addiction. While these investments were not supported by the legislature, it's an area where we should continue to focus. I also established a violence protection task force, which submitted its first set of recommendations to me last week. To be clear, I still need to review this report, but I know it does include further gun safety measures, which I'll take a serious look at. As well, community health initiatives like expanding the Department of Mental Health's Zero Suicide Program and more mental health supports in schools. I know there probably won't be consensus to act on every initiative, but I believe focusing on the underlying causes of violence and suicide should be our top focus. As I said in my veto message, I don't believe the bill that came to my desk this week addresses these underlying factors, or would achieve the public safety goals and aim to achieve. I believe these concerns are shared by legislators in different parties in the House and Senate. Disagreeing on the impact of a 24-hour delay for handgun purchases, however, does not mean we don't all share the goal to prevent suicide and acts of violence. I also think it's important to note, for better or for worse, in the eyes of some, Vermont would have no gun safety regulations if it wasn't for my advocacy and willingness to keep an open mind. As I've shown and you've reported on, gun safety is an area I'm willing to advocate for and support, which is not something I believe any other governor in Vermont's history can say. I'm simply not persuaded a 24-hour waiting period on handguns will have the desired outcome. And there is an awaiting period measure that gives us an apples to apples comparison to assess the impact. Moving forward, we can work together to address these underlying causes. And if there are gun safety reforms, I will continue to consider the positive and negative impacts of every proposal to improve the safety and health of our communities. So with that, I'd be happy to try and answer any questions. Governor, yesterday the blacks called your decision cowardly and they're understandably disappointed and upset. When you hear that, when you hear that they think your action was cowardly, how does that make you feel? Well, I certainly understand their disappointment, their anger, their grief, the pain. I can't imagine as a father of two girls, what I would be going through if I was in their position. So I accept that. They have their opinion. The veto wasn't based on strictly their standpoint, but I understand. What were you looking for in the way of data to justify sign this bill that you did not find? Well, I just didn't find any comparisons with a 24-hour waiting period on handguns alone that was apples to apples as well. With anything that I did find in terms of waiting periods in the ten states, nine other states, I believe that have enacted this waiting period, they didn't have an apples to apples comparison to the legislation we passed last year, red flag provisions, extreme risk protection orders and so forth. None of them had that in comparison to what we've done. So I believe what we accomplished last year was the right thing to do at the right time, and I believe that there's some benefits to what we're going to see now and in the future as a result of that legislation. So you're not convinced that this would prevent suicides or gun deaths? I'm not convinced that 24-hour waiting period for handguns alone will do that. Do you think it would have saved any lives? I have no way of knowing that. Is it possible it could have saved lives? I think there's a lot of possibilities, a lot of actions we take day in and day out in the legislature that could save lives that we don't act on. There is nothing conclusive to anything we do, but again, it's about balance, trying to find opportunities for us to live the free lives we want as well as protect the innocent. You're saying, though, at the same time that you remain open to additional restrictions on gun ownership? Well, I think we have to be open-minded across the country in terms of what we can do to protect our citizens and what's affected and what's not. Again, I think that we need to, and I've been consistent in saying that we did a lot last year. It's monumental in many respects, and I think we need to give that an opportunity to work. I think we need to allow Vermonters to adjust to that and to use that. And again, with the red flag legislation in particular, I think that that could be beneficial if more people understood it and advocated for it more. Is the task force report available, or are you withholding it until you review it? I would like to withhold that until I review it, and it is on my to-do list. Does it include a waiting period? Not that I haven't reviewed it in depth. I just breezed through it, but I did not see any waiting period there. You mentioned Vermon or S-169 in comparison to other states' waiting periods. Do you believe any of those other states' waiting periods are effective and say less? Well, I think they could. I mean, I think the extreme might have been Hawaii, maybe with a 10-day waiting period. That may be effective. I mean, it's, again, hard to correlate the two. I'm not sure what they have. If they have extreme risk protection orders, red flag legislation. I don't know what they, if their age is 18 or 21. I just don't know all the other details that fit into what we did last year, because it does make a difference. Would you consider a longer waiting period? Again, I'm looking for something that's effective, some data to back it up. I would like to see if what we did is effective, and I'll consider being able to mine it to anything. But, again, I don't believe a 24-hour waiting period, but I think that only is effective. Would you say not effective? I'm confused as to whether it's because it's too short and people would simply wait for 24 hours? Or, I guess could you clarify why? The law that was brought to me, that was passed by the legislature, I just don't think is effective. I don't think the 24 hours is effective. So would 48 or 72 hours be effective? I would be happy to look at the data and make that comparison. But I, again, I want to see what we've, the action we took last year was significant. I think we can all agree to that. And I think we need to allow for monitors to become adjusted to that. Are you going to meet with the blacks and explain your decision about that? I did meet with the blacks during the legislative session. I made no promises. I listened to their heartbreaking story. And to say that it didn't have an effect on me wouldn't be the truth. It obviously did. And I feel a great amount of sympathy for what they've gone through. But again, I have to balance what I think is right for the state versus my emotions. So that's an out. To meet with them? Yeah. If they would like to meet with me, I would be happy to meet with them. The China class is gaming out the political implications of these heroes and your decisions on them. Peter Shumlin announced in June of the year before the next election that he was not going to be running. You decided whether or not you're going to see him? Oh, no. Again, just five or six months ago that I was sworn into office. I think I'm going to let that ride out a little longer. I have another session to go through. You would consider announcing that you're not seeking reelection after the next legislative session? I think that would be fair to say. I mean, any decision will come after the legislative session. I think it's just way too early. What made you decide to sign age 57 opposed to just letting it become law without your signature? I thought it was important to make a statement in terms of seeing what's happening throughout our country and other states making the exact opposite, taking the exact opposite approach. And I thought it was important for me to step up because this is what I believe. I don't believe government should be involved in healthcare decisions between a person and a provider. Could it have been an important statement given the fact that a lot of your fellow Republicans are pushing in the opposite direction? Wouldn't this be a time to make a really definitive statement by signing it in public? Well, it could be. But again, I mean, I'll talk about the practicality of all this. And we received, as you know, a number of bills all at once. We received a number of bills last week. They were all built up. There was probably 15 bills that were due in two days. We have a lot to do in terms of reviewing, a lot to do in terms of my decision making. And I want to take all the time necessary to do that. And when you do that, there's not really enough time to put a public signing together. So, again, I thought it was reflecting on it over the last few days. I thought it was necessary to sign it, put my name on it, and be held accountable for it. Why did we see or hear from you on these two big decisions at the same time? What was your thinking in that? Well, it was the same time practically within 24 hours or, you know, in one sense, yeah, within 24 hours of each other. So I just thought it was important to make the decision. And because I know it was on the minds of many, they were both talked about a lot. So I thought it was important to make that at the same time. And when did you make that decision? I would say on Monday, you know, over the weekend. I did a lot of thinking over the weekend, a lot of contemplating, soul-searching, and so forth, and came to that conclusion over the weekend. Told my staff on Monday morning. There are a lot of members of your own party who are concerned about age 57, the protections that it offers go beyond what Rovers' weight offers. Were you weighing those concerns and making your decision? Was there ever any concern that this bill went too far? No political concerns for me. It was just something that I had to come to grips with. I wanted to reflect and talk with my family and friends, and just so that I knew for sure what I wanted to do, and I wanted to make sure that I did it for the right reasons. And the right reasons for me was pretty basic. Just government should stay out of those decisions, shouldn't interject, intercede in those decisions between a person and their health care provider. I just fundamentally don't believe government should be involved. Your statement about S169, and you repeated it this morning, talked about the fact that it didn't address the underlying causes, which to be really direct, you could say the same about chemotherapy and cancer, it doesn't address the underlying causes, it just treats the illness. And if you have a bill, if you have a mechanism that interrupts that immediate Andrew Black situation where he feels overwhelmed, he buys a gun and kills himself within hours, that would seem to be a very useful circuit breaker, even if it doesn't address the underlying causes. At the same time, if we go away with signing a bill, and putting it into law, and it doesn't address the underlying issues, and we go away patting ourselves on the back that we saved another life, how many other lives are we putting at risk for not addressing it. So I think it's important that we take that step, that we address those issues, the underlying root causes. Again, we put a lot of things in place last year. I think the extreme risk protection orders can be effective, and I think that we should, and if they need to be changed in some way, modified in some way to make them more effective, then we should move forward on that. Well, the protection orders don't address the underlying causes of investor violence. No, but again, getting to those root causes, at least addressing the issue, and maybe getting them identifying that there is an issue at that point, and getting them into programs that will help, I think has a desired effect as opposed to a 24-hour waiting period that just puts it off possibly for 24 hours without ever identifying and highlighting that there is an issue. Governor, this morning, Christina Nolan, U.S. Attorney Nolan, announced federal charges against Veronica Lewis after state charges were dismissed. Have you had conversations with your team with the U.S. Attorney about federal charges against the three cases that were dismissed by Sarah George? We were made aware of the U.S. Attorney's decision to move forward with charges yesterday. So I think this is good news in a lot of respects, and I applaud her for doing so. Do you expect the U.S. Attorney to seek federal charges against the other two? I'm not sure about that. That's obviously her decision, and I applaud the Attorney General for he sent a letter. I think some of you have reported on that, seeing the letter where he is going to review those cases. So I think that's good news as well. I'm curious to see what you can do with the medical monitor and if you have any decisions on that yet? We just received that yesterday, and I've been a little busy with some other things. So that's the next on the list as well. Are you happy with the results of helping the business community in this session? I think we had a good impact in many respects. A good balance of a number of initiatives that I think will be helpful in terms of trying workforce development in particular. And I think that that's something that we'll have to continue to try and address in the next half of the biennium. I think it's that important. But again, the economy is doing fairly well. It could be doing better. But our workforce challenges are probably the root cause or the demographics of the root cause of some of what we're seeing. And again, if we can fill the jobs that are available and bring more people into the state, I think that will be beneficial to our budgetary issues and some of the challenges we face in that area. Do you have any disappointments? There's always disappointments in every session. None of us get all we want. But I think all in all, I think everyone was a good session. Very civil and respectful. We listened to one another. And in the end, I think Bermuda should be proud of what we did. It seemed you slowed down on trying to cut school costs? Well, I'm a realist. And I tried that for the first two years. I didn't have a willing partner in that respect. And so I need to focus on areas where we can be effective. And I think the demographic issues, the workforce challenges and so forth are something that seems to be catching on. Legislators are more aware of that than ever and have worked hand in hand with us and come up with initiatives as well that can be helpful. So I'm trying to focus on areas that we have common goals. And that doesn't mean the other, the education challenges that we face goes away. It doesn't mean that I'm not willing to work with them. But when they're ready, I'm there ready, willing, and able. Are you working on major proposals for next year? Always. Such as? We're working on. You said you'd like to work with lawmakers on addressing the underlying problems of violence, suicide. Can promoters expect your budget and your state of the state address next year to lay out concrete proposals that you can identify back to this moment and say this is what I've come up with? Quite possibly. It may be a resurrection of some things we've offered as well that they didn't accept. I think having, embedding more counselors into the communities is a good idea. I think more early caring learning is essential. I think that we can do more in all kinds of different areas that we propose. Maybe it wasn't the right time for them to consider. But I think you'll see that. We've had, since I took office, we've increased investment not just from us, but from the legislature as well, increased investment in mental health and significantly year after year. So it's not as though we move back on that commitment, but I think that we need to continue to highlight because we all know, as we have seen, we, along with many other states, have mental health issues that we need to address. Just curious, you still have the apartment back there? You turned that into an office? No, it's still back there, but I don't use it as an apartment. I live fairly, fairly near. I don't think anybody really has. Okay, thank you very much.