 Alright, welcome everybody this is Friday at 1pm or 102pm general housing and military affairs we are here this afternoon to introduce or just to have bill introductions on four bills that have a relationship to issues related to the abinackey. This has been these these bills have been ongoing in our committee that because it is part of our portfolio. These are just some of the bills that will be that are out in the world. Abinackey issues there's some in ways means and there's some efficient wildlife, but we are dealing with four bills here today. We're going to start today with representative O'Brien is here. I'm going to lose my page. Representative O'Brien is here on eight six one eight. So representable Brian I believe this is the first time you've ever testified to our committee. And so welcome. We're going to introduce ourselves to you starting with the folks who are on zoom. Hello and welcome representative O'Brien I'm Mary Howard I represent Rutland District five three. Oh, I hope I think that I'm next to the alphabet. Hello. Hello, Brian. Welcome. Nice to see you. John Calackey from South Burlington. I represent a Brian John plastic representing Melton. And O'Brien Chuck Troy I know from standard. You know each other. And, you know, O'Brien and I know each other to Tommy Waltz from Berry City. And in here now, representative Matt Byron, Virginia. Good to see you. Hi, I'm representative Lisa Hango and I represent Highgate, Franklin Berkshire and rich for down the northern border nice to meet you. Hello, just lonely representing Burlington, South Bend. Joe Parsons represent Newberry top some of the ground. Hi, I'm John Calackey representing Fairfax. And I'm representing Tom Stevens from Waterbury representing Waterbury, Colton Huntington and fuels gore. So welcome. Well thank you. I think I know all of you, at least from zoom titles, if not in person. And representative hang out was just over an house ag introducing a bell so she's turned the tables on me here. I think this is only the second bill I've been the lead sponsor on and so last time it was I was in house transportation and appropriately like a deer in the headlights. So it's scary when you're a freshman and you go before one of these committees and have to introduce a bill so if I do probably it doesn't I'll, I'll get to the point where it'll be, I'll be relaxed anyway. So, a narrative on on where this bill came from in in house ag week as you probably do here. And have these sort of clearing house cattle call hearings where I think in a rural Vermont or NOFA invites a whole lot of farmers and people in the food systems economy to come in and talk to our, our committee and the chief Don Stevens of the Nalpegan. Have an ackee tribe kept popping up in these things there was a red wing hearing to the was in any any. He described the challenges. His tribe was having raising food. They own a bison herd but they, they have to use somebody else's land they don't own any land and so they're, they're food sovereignty or they're there. It's just really hard for that tribe to to raise their own food whether it's livestock or crops. So I thought. And in one other time he said, Hey, don't forget us so those two things in mind I said about thinking like just because I'm a, I'm a farmer and a food person. I'm a farmer and a food sovereignty committee I thought, is there anything we can do here to increase access for the tribes to to raise their own food. Talking about food you know it. I'm as I mentioned I'm a farmer I'm also, I love all things about food, maybe not as much as representative by wrong but you know I like shopping. I love eating, I love cooking. I don't like dishes, but that's probably the only thing. And I like almost all of this. And you and I are totally on par with one another. And I don't like liver, but otherwise. So interesting, just from a personal standpoint, I really understand on my farm that I grew up on in Tumbridge that if that farm was, if I was dispossessed of it or the farm was stolen, how frustrating that would be. If I wanted to raise my sheep or plant apple trees, and I was no longer able to do that. And then I, going back to house ag, almost every day now in house ag, we talk about regenerative farming and healthy soils, how important they are to Vermont and how actually great the soils are in Vermont or sort of way ahead of the country on where we are with soils and soil science. And then now this week, especially old forest has come up a lot, these forests that are managed to just sort of be themselves. And it takes like 120 years for an old forest to be an old forest. But Vermont only has about 1% of old forest left. So historically, you look at this, it's like, well, the Abenaki tribes were doing regenerative farming 10,000 years ago and they understood healthy soils and they understood clean water. We have to think of Atlantic salmon in Royalton and Tumbridge is pretty amazing. And they also, because they were so non-invasive understood old forest. So I think we have a lot to learn from Abenaki tribes and their relationship to the land, both in terms of agriculture, husbandry and also that sort of harvesting of food, whether it's in hunting, fishing, trapping or foraging in the woods. So this bill H618, an act, what do they call it? An act relating to providing Abenaki with access to state lands for the purposes of farming, of hunting, fishing, trapping and also for sacred religious and cultural practices. It's a short bill, but as we always say, it's not simple and it's not easy. The outcomes of this bill, what it does is it's proposing that the Abenaki tribes would have access to state-owned land or state lease land in some cases to do all these things that they did 10,000 years ago. You know, whether it's raised crops, raised animals, hunting, trap fish, forage and also those religious and cultural practices. And hopefully move towards food sovereignty too. I know the Vermont Commission on Native American Affairs and what you've been dealing with this, the truth and accountability process wants to move towards the tribes owning their own land. So their food sovereignty would be much more secure, their food security would be insured if they own their land and how long this process is gonna take, we don't know. And so this, I see this bill as something incremental moving towards that. It's not, as I think Carol McGanigan said from the VCNAA that she was cautious that she didn't wanna, if this bill made it to the finish line, that we'd all say, well, that's close enough to the truth and accountability process. Let's, we're done now. I don't see it that way at all. And I suspect this committee wouldn't either, given that you know a lot more about Abenaki, that whole process of this truth and accountability than I certainly do. So I see this as, you know, if you take Forest Parks and Rec or you take BGS or you take the Department of Corrections, you know, there's so much land in Vermont, like just the state forest, I think, or it's like 350,000 acres. It seems like there's enough land out there to make this work. And I also think, you know, there need to be rules and vetting involved in this agencies and departments and the tribes and the VCNAA, you know, working this out with a spirit of collaboration. But, you know, if you go from the tribes not being really federally recognized and Vermont not being the state of Vermont sort of following along that with that finding to go from no land to potentially a lot of land or enough land to raise plenty of food, it seems like it would be a very healthy bill to become law. And I can see, you know, think of something like the Windsor Prison where there's so many painful memories there, but it's 100 acres, it's a 100 acre farm to turn that into a garden would be really spectacular thing. Or, you know, rich flood plain in the Nalhegan Basin and the same thing, you could grow a lot of crops there. Many pitfalls in this bill. Starting with me, I mean, I understand there's so much complexity around anything with the tribes that I'm sure to put in my mouth at some point or take somebody off somewhere or some community off. But, so I'm out of my comfort zone with this bill and I feel it's important to pitch it to you and I really trust this committee to do a good job vetting it. For example, talking with Damien Leonard at Legislative Council who draws up these bills for your committee. We decided to remain silent on potential, you know, there are all these contingencies that always come up. And so we decided to remain silent on say commercial uses of state land. So say a tribe had, you know, a 10,000 tap sugar bush. You know, is that, would that be too much on state land or if they made too much money, you know, would there be a cap on it? So, or could they have a farm stand on state land if they grew a lot of pumpkins? But those are the sort of things I think this committee would vet very well and figure out, you know, maybe in consultation and engagement with the departments and the agencies. You know, how does this work? You know, there has to be a way to figure this out so that it's not abused. But at the same time, there are opportunities there for the tribes. So good luck with that. And along those lines, on the precedents of it, I found out talking to Commissioner Steiner from FPR that already there are a bunch of usage and access rules for tribes. Like we're all Vermonters for say, for example, say foraging in our state forest. You can do that now. And I know, I think this committee, you were the ones who were probably vetting was it last year's bills on hunting licenses for ever hunting licenses or hunting licenses for tribes. And also that having, was it state parks use Abenaki names also. So you have some experience with this, but I also think a lot of the agencies that would be involved here also have experience with tribal matters. So, Insumation, which is the sweetest word in the English language, since we all sit in meetings, we're almost there. You know, this is that I found bipartisan support for this. And it was funny because representative Donahue said, this is great, it opens an important dialogue and representative Webb said, all right, I'll sign on, but this may open a can of worms. And I think it's, you know, both of those are really true. And then talking to Commissioner Steiner, he said, yeah, it's not gonna be easy. It's not gonna be simple, but we're happy to engage. And I think if this committee is like that, if the stakeholders engage, who knows where this could go, but I have a good feeling about it. So thank you very much. And any questions? See, Tommy. Representative Wallace, then I go. Yeah, thank you. Thanks, John, for presenting that. I grew up in Maine where there was a similar issue that tribes there were recognized by the state, but not by the federal government. And when they finally did get federal recognition, the state ceded them, and I forget the exact amount, but it was many hundreds of acres of land. And I'm just wondering if that would be a solution here when it comes to questions of what's appropriate use, you know, should they be commercial? Commercial activity of the land, which the Maine Indians have done. They've done logging, for example. I wonder if a way to get around this is just to cede the land to them. And it's theirs to do with as they wish. You know, it's not in this bill, but I think that's gonna be a discussion going forward, you know, in future bienniums, because I know the tribes would like to have ownership of land in Vermont that they can do with what they see fit. But I, you know, and I don't know, I think even in Maine, right, that it was controversial as far as it wasn't necessarily the same land where these tribes traditionally were from. For example, yeah. Well, typical in our dealing with Native Americans, right. Basically, it was paper company land. The paper companies weren't using any more and nobody wanted it. So that's what they gave them, right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I would hope in Vermont, you know, if and when we could get to that point, it won't be like, well, we'll give the Nalhegan tribe the whole Belvedere Eden asbestos mine. It won't be like that. It'd be like, we'll give them, you know, traditional lands. Well, and I think you're to that point representative, it's that's exactly what the issue would be. I mean, it's like, do you give people gristle or are you giving them something that's worthwhile? And I think that there's a stereotypical default to the gristle, because that's easier to give away. But that's not what, I don't think that's the work that we're looking at right now. Representative Hago, then Kulaki. Thank you, Representative O'Brien, for bringing this forward. I do have Abnaki in my district and this is a really interesting bill. So I appreciate it. I also appreciate your comments about doing your first bill introductions. I felt very similar in your committee the other day. So thanks for that, that gave you a good laugh. Representative Kulaki, then Byron. Thank you, Representative O'Brien. I believe the Vermont Land Trust has now entered into agreements with the tribes who allow access for some of these things you're talking about in your bill to their land. Is that, I mean, if you go forward with this bill, is it a parallel process? Do you know? I don't know, Representative Kulaki. I mean, I've heard that there's another bill that's probably, it's coming before you. It has already come about making Abnaki lands tax exempt. And they don't really even own their own land, but they have arrangements for not for profits being the intermediary so that it's as close as they can get. And I think some of those lands are Vermont Land Trust lands. So I suspect that relationship is somewhat ahead of where this bill would go, but similar sort of arrangements. Okay, and then I just, one word, I just wanna make sure I understood the intention of it in your bill, it says vested interest. And so if people are growing, nothing in this section on page three shall be constructed to require taking a vested property interest. But if I was allowed to grow crops on a land, which sounds fantastic, wouldn't I wanna have some kind of vested interest in that plot so that Representative Toronto wouldn't come over and his motorcycle and take all my crops away? You know, or I don't know what vested means. And so, and I know this is an introduction, but what did you mean by that? As far as I know, I mean, I think we should probably defer to legal counsel on that. Right, because I think it may be, I know in real estate law, it probably has a different meaning somewhat than what I would guess it to be. So it may just be that they don't own the ground on which they're growing crops or have some sort of right to it. And almost like a dairy farmer leasing a hay field, it's probably something similar to that. Well, thank you very much. And it may very well be a real estate illusion, maybe like a state-sponsored condemnation of a property or the taking of a property where the state or the municipality or whoever determines, yes, we need that. We'll give it to you for, we'll buy what we determine with the market. I mean, all that's the messy real estate deals because this is what that's trying to avoid right there. Representative Byron. Thank you. Lease was the perfect segue. You're talking about leased land that the state owns. I was just trying to like, spin through my mind of examples I know of that. So you have an entity like Stowe Mountain leases that portion of like Mount Mansfield from the state, but they own the gear and blah, blah, blah. So what are other examples of leased land? Cause that's really the only type that I know of right now that this would be. Is that like logging? Like I'm not even sure. Yeah. That's certainly above my pay grade too. It came up, I think, you know, when Damien was crafting this and that's the sort of thing right where whoever has whatever agency say has jurisdiction over that, you know, they, I can see them saying like, this is too complicated. Let's drop this or let, you know, let us work this out with the tribes depending on right, how long the lease is and what sort of protections the tribes would have if they started to do some of the stuff that this bill allows them to do on that land. Now there are all those questions of like, could the tribe, right, could a tribe grow tobacco on the face that at Stowe or on the state house lawn? I mean, those are the sort of things that maybe, but you know, I think it would be a vetting process that hopefully everybody could agree on. And you guys are, you do housing. So it was interesting yesterday and actually on Representative Hango's bill that it has to do with the Highgate Airport and next to it is the Franklin County Field Days Land which is actually state owned. It's on the state state owned airport land and it apparently looked like a developer wants to come in and put an industrial park there, but the state might actually sell a certain amount of acres to that developer. And that, I never actually heard that the state, you know, is sort of a realtor and they potentially might sell acres. I know they're, we're always doing land swaps and things like that. But I was, it was the first time I've heard that the state actually could sell land. And you might know more about that as a committee. I mean, that's through the capital. That's through institutions committee. They have to go through a process of when they want to shed land or lease land or, and then when you're dealing with airports, it's a whole different story as well because there has to be, you know, there was to be set back and stuff, et cetera, et cetera. But yeah, I mean the land, the state, it fluctuates. You know, I don't know they ever call it surplus land, but it just, it fluctuates. So representative Murphy, then Toronto. I was just going to share. I don't know if it would be too informal, but when you were speaking of any of these circumstances of leasing land, I have friends who have certain amount of acreage that they don't care to maintain, but a local farmer haze it for them. And so they do the fields and stuff. And he, and there's no fee. He gets crop and they get their meadows maintained. So, you know, I think there are mutually agreeable situations that get worked out and could be used as examples. Yeah, that's a good point. And I know that just growing up in Tumbridge that we've gone from with that very example, we've gone from the farmers, you know, back in the 1970s and 80s actually paying, say a neighbor who has a field for the hay, for standing hay. And then it's gotten to, you know, where it was, please just take my field, you do, you can have the hay. And now it's getting to the point where those neighbors are paying the farmers to actually cut the field. So they get paid for it and they get a crop. Is that right? I have the same arranger with my neighbor who haze my fields and he feeds it to his brief cattle. And, you know, that it's just, he takes it, or what it, you know, just takes it and no charge. And he does maintain the fields with some manure and as you say, maintains it and keeps them open. You know, it's really valuable to me to have open land. But I guess my question, John, is if you know, with this, are you considering this to be exclusive rights? For instance, you know, we've got 2,300 acres here on Standard Mountain. That's part of the Steam Mill Brook Wildlife Preserve. It's a very popular hunting fishing area. And certainly, you know, I think there's a great idea and certainly native people would be welcome if they could find it. But it's not an easy access. But, you know, would this be an exclusive right? Would you anticipate or would it be open to the general public? Have you given that thought? Yeah, I mean, what, you know, you and your motorcycle versus a patch of pumpkins. I mean, I think there would have to be some protections if there was farming going on or, you know, hunting or fishing, you know, when the season might be different, which I think it already is for some tribes with fish and wildlife. So as long as there were protections, you know, I think there are also great educational opportunities for Vermonters here, too, that if, you know, here's 100 acres of, say, traditional avanecki, husbandry, you know, what does that look like? What could we learn from that? We could take school trips there. I see a lot of that potentially, too. Yeah. That sounds great. This is a nice piece of work, John. Thank you. All right. Further questions for Representative O'Brien? Chair Steven? Yes. Is there any way, I know once it's happened on your committee webpage, you know, I could find out who was called to testify on the bill. Is there, sort of, I guess, looking at the agenda every week, is there a notice that, oh, we're going to look at, you know, this bill this week? And does anything like that happen? Well, we schedule about a week out in advance. Okay. I work with the vice chair and our chair. I work with the vice chair and our committee assistant. We set an agenda for the following week. And we usually release that agenda, you know, as early as Friday afternoons, as late as Monday afternoons. So there is some advanced warning. We would call witnesses. I mean, you mentioned Mike Snyder, he would certainly be at the top of the list to talk about. And I have two bills that I'll talk about when you're done here that don't fit hand and glove with this, but that are related to land. And I have an active use of land, but I think you brought up a very important point is that some of these organizations, whether it's the land trust, whether it's the state already have certain agreements with the government, or the state that the commission is working on, or I think it's the best strategy about certain. Access points that they can utilize. And the question is, you know, there's a question as to, you know, well, do we just fence off 300 acres for bison? Or do we, you know, however that works, does it land in trust? Is it ownership rights? You know, I mean, there's all these questions that. There's all these different mechanisms that can be used. It's just a question of what does this, what does the state do? And the fact that I mean, my experience with commissioner Snyder has always been positive. He's always been very engaged in these conversations. He's not one to, and you expressed it in a different way that I'm going to say, but he's never wanted to just say no and make it that hard. He's always interested in hearing what the, what the question is and to see if it's a problem that can be solved knowing full well that the system is. Arrayed against the simplest ideas. But he's always engaged in trying to find a solution that, that would honor the request. So he's definitely high. So that's a long way to say, yeah, we, we, we post our, we post our agenda. Pretty much a week before. Okay. That's super helpful, right? If I just go Monday and look at your agenda, then I could just in case they're, they're stakeholders who are interested in, in watching as I am. Yes. It's certainly, I mean, I think we all, we, you know, there are specific stakeholders that you would like us to hear, please forward those on to me or to run wild and, and we'll, you know, keep a folder of possibilities. And I know, of course, you know, we'll talk to Chief Stevens. We'll talk to the commission. We'll talk to commissioner Snyder. There may be others. Again, you'll hear it, you know, there's plenty of folks on this bill on these next two bills that, that are connected. But, you know, we want to see what's possible. Yep. That's great. All right. Thank you. Representative try that was that a new man or. No, okay. All right. He has a legacy of legacy hands. Really will be his legacy. No, it won't. If you didn't mean it that way. I miss what he said, but did you say by wrong? The legacy hand will be your biggest legacy. I would hope that it'd be a little bit better. Yeah. I understand, but blue hand is a blue hand. I understand that the agriculture committee wasn't meeting today. So you're free to stay. If you'd like to hear these other bills, these other happen after related bills. If not, then thank you so much. Have a very weekend. Thanks. You too. All right. I'm going to. I guess motor. To the bottom of it. Are we not doing a 520? He's not here yet. He didn't respond. Nor did his committee assistant. Okay. He did respond to the invitation some days ago. I saw. I can't feel hitting the streets on our way up here. All right. Well, Representative Massel works at home. So. What I was saying, it looked like the meeting had broken to the day. Yeah. All right. I am going to. Start with S. 620. Which is a short form. It's a bill I put in. What's that? Beach. What did I say? My ambition. It's over the course of the fall. We've been in conversation as always with. Different folks from the. The month. Commission on Native American affairs through mostly through the chair. Carol McGrana hand. Or some of the other. What do I say? Yes. My ambition. We get to S. 620s man. Yeah. Each 620. Over the course of the fall. We've been in conversation as always with. Different folks from the. The month. The month. Through mostly through the chair Carol McGrana hand. Or some of the other. Or some of the other cheese. And they brought forward a list of priorities as people do. And this was one of them. This is a short form. That. So it goes into. Or it's connected in some way to what represented. And I'm just reading the statement of the purpose of the bill. Is that it proposes to clarify the right of recognize. Abinac tribes and bands to own land. In Vermont and to create a study committee to examine possible mechanisms to allow for the repatriation. Of traditional Abinac lands to the tribes. Through mechanisms such as a transfer of title. The establishment of permanent easements and other novel. Legal mechanisms. That would ensure the perpetual preservation and protection of land and access to it for use by the Abinac. So it's really just a. An idea is to. The first part to clarify the right of recognize tribes are statute when we, when we pass the recognition statutes. We expressly put in that recognition does not mean. That land would be granted to them. So it's not just a right to recognize tribes. It's not just that there are no rights of, you know, whether it's casinos or, or, or other. Businesses like that. That's. That can fall. To federally recognized tribes. So the idea of clarifying the right. To own land in Vermont. Is they can own lands. Let's purchase some of their own accord. They can own. Non-profit organizations. They may be. So the question of how that would work or to clarify, I think, I think one of the issues again brought up by representative Brian is that getting an idea of how the state interacts with the Abinac is already would be one thing, but the key thing here is, is a committee to examine the possible mechanisms to allow for repatriation of traditional land. So it's. Ownership. Primarily. And in other states, there might be a rather than this being granted to a particular tribal band. It may be held in trust. In other states, they hold them in trust so that. That the. The indigenous people feel like they can come and go as they please on land that they have control over. It's an important right. That's a step above what is proposed in the, in the previous bill. The second bill. That have this has a small number of blocks that's 20 plus sponsors to it. And this is about protection of Abinac the sacred sites and providing a tax exemption for those sites if they own it. Or it could be for. People who have these sites on their properties. And this is obviously important to them and historical. Historical. Light. The clearest example I have is the petrocliffs. In the Connecticut river. That. In other states recently, there has been. Damage done has been. There's been graffiti or. Over scratching. Some sacred. Some sacred sites in different parts of the country. And so the key on this one. The first key is that it would develop a list and identify to state. Sites and locations in Vermont that have cultural religious or spiritual significance to Native American Indians. Or are used by Native American Indians for cultural religious or spiritual purposes with both. That the. State would be able to consult. There's a definition here of consult, which is new to me. I don't know if it's new in state language. It was in representative of O'Brien's bill as well. This commission, this study would, would also make recommendations to the state regarding the acquisition and facilitation of access to these cultural and sacred sites that are located on private lands and currently inaccessible to Native American Indians. It would make recommendations to the general assembly regarding possible legislative actions. To encourage private property owners to preserve and protect these sites. And to allow access. And then. It does do. A change. To the. The way the commission meets about how many times the commission can meet and. Commissioners would be receiving. The per diem in which it would say that the commission shall meet as needed. No more than nine times a year. Which according to the commission is still short of what they usually. Do, but this would allow them to get paid for nine. At the per diem rate, which is fairly low. For nine meetings rather than six. And then. These. Records of. Sacred sites. Like the applications that were made. For recognition. Would be considered to be confidential. And shall not be subject to copying or instruction. And that's. That's something that's very important. That was very important during the recognition process. Given that people. Native Americans have felt attacked by others who. Dispute their, their. Status. And then this idea of consulting, you know, that there's a statement of intent here. About the protection. Of cultural and sacred sites saying that it's policy, a state of amount of protection, preserving the inherent right of the members of the month, Native American Indians. People's to believe, express and exercise their traditional beliefs and cultural and religious practices, including through. Access to Native American cultural and sacred sites. The use and possession of culturally significant or sacred objects and materials, including tobacco. And the freedom to product to practice traditional ceremonies and rights. And then it gives. A list of things at the state. Will allow, which is committing access. For ceremonial purposes. These sites, these cultural sites that are owned on property. Owned or at least by the state. And. The consultation with the commission shall be conducted in a way that's mutually respectful and shall recognize the potential need for confidentiality. And so. With respect to the particular Native American cultural. And sacred site. And then there's a repetition of what we just saw and. Representative O'Brien's bill about the vested in property interests. And. And again, the last on page, the bottom of page five, so you use that definition. Of consult. Which it means to engage in a meaningful and timely process of considering carefully the views. Of others in a manner that is cognizant of all parties, cultural values and where feasible seeking. Agreement. The last section, section three or the last substantive section, section three is, is a. That real property identified as Native American cultural or sacred site. Pursuant to this show. The tax exempt. So. That is this bill. And the two of them together are. They. There is a bill in ways and means that represents Sims. I believe it was really sponsored along. That was. I'm on that as well. The one about. Tax exemption bill. Which is different than this. It's because it's about, it's about tribe property. That's like existing for the purpose of that. Right. And that one, they'll, you know, if they take that bill up, it takes, I think that. The, I think the financial. Commitment to that is less than $15,000 a year. So, but that's in, you know, that's in their committee. So these bills. You know, these are, these are part of. These are part of a list of priorities from, from the tribes and from the commission. They are. There are others, I believe. And we'll consider as we can, as we see fit as we can, you know, it's, it's a long. Ongoing process of, of trying to make a certain piece with the out of the. In ways that we can. That are meaningful. And, you know, I think we've heard that farming is important. Certainly in the past hunting is important. Identification of place names is important. And those are smaller, really low cost items. Repatriation is a harder conversation to have because that's a deeper ownership issue and how we deal with state property and, and then moving ownership to any of that. Those are the conversations that we have in this committee when we have this, when we have this subject. That's what I have on these two bills. Okay. I can't see if anybody's asking questions. I took it down because I, for me, the complexity in this bill is the issue of. Public access with nonprofit status. So if it's on private land. If it's granted nonprofit status, I think that it has to have access to it. So I, and I think it's in this bill. I mean, I'm part of this. I'm supportive of this bill, but I think that that's the twist for me that we have to really, really figure out what that means, what it really can look like. So, right. There are so many potential answers to it that. We would just have to sort out. You know what, you know, what would work. All right. Let's take. 10 minutes and come back to and. 477, I think.