 Good afternoon, everyone, and thanks for being here. One of the reasons I ran for governor seven years ago was to make Vermont more affordable. For years, I heard from Vermonters who were struggling to get by and didn't know how much longer they could afford to stay in the state they love. While reducing taxes outright is much more effective, I knew holding the line on taxes and fees was much more realistic. And it has allowed us to better level the playing fields with other states. Making Vermont more affordable is essential to our economic growth. Because if we don't make it more affordable, we'll keep losing Vermonters to less expensive states. And we won't be able to attract the workforce we so desperately need. If we don't make Vermont more competitive, we won't be able to grow more organically and invest in our priorities. In fact, we'll struggle to pay for the programs we already have. As I said last week in my time as governor, we've done a pretty good job holding the line on taxes and fees. And I believe most Vermonters agree with this strategy as I've been re-elected ever since. But our good work is in jeopardy. Again, this year alone, the legislature is considering historic tax hikes on working Vermonters, including $117 million payroll tax for mandatory paid leave, $100 million payroll tax for childcare, $20 million in DMV fee increases, adding about 75 new positions throughout government, $30 million in property tax increases for school meals, increasing the income and the corporate tax rates, and the millions in upfront costs for the clean heat standard, which will increase the cost for heating fuels, which could be 70 cents a gallon. Not to mention our annual pension liability, which is continuing to grow. Despite the more than $250 million band aid, the legislature claim would fix this problem just last year. In my veto message, I argued the pension problem wouldn't be solved by their bill. And I predicted we'd be back in the same position a few years down the line. Well, as you know, they overrode my veto, but I have to admit, I was wrong, because it actually took less than a year for this to happen, and now we're in worse shape. So looking at what the legislature is poised to do, I firmly believe there's a better path forward than what they have in mind to achieve our shared goals. And as one of the highest tax states in the nation, I simply cannot go along with adding to the problem. And that's especially true when we have a record number of surpluses, and families are already struggling with the burden of inflation. For Monter's elected me to bring balance and be a fiscal check on Montilier. And in the weeks remaining, that's what I'll continue to do. Three months ago, I presented a budget to the legislature that had historic investment in shared priorities without setting us up for future fiscal disaster and without forcing over tax for Monter's to pay even more. If those who are listening agree, you should call your legislature, well, the legislator. And if you don't know who they are, you can call us at our office at 828-3333 and we'll put you in touch because there's still time to change course. So with that, I'll open up to questions. We're on Facebook Live and I know a number of people tune in. So, and I never know what you're going to write or put on your media platform. So it's the anyone who wants to listen. What makes you think that communication from individual constituents to law makers is going to compel them to move away from some of the things that they're already so far. I don't know that it will, but they're elected by their constituents. And typically we listen, try and listen to our constituents, at least listen to what they have to say and let them know where we stand. So that's all. I don't know that it's going to have any effect, but I don't know what else to do. A few weeks ago, you in a speech right here said something feels different this year. One thing that's different is Democrats have more members of the House, significantly more. To what extent do you think that's at play in the dynamic this year? Well, I do think it's emboldened them because they've made a lot of campaign promises that they need to fulfill. And I don't know is anyone contemplated them having it all at once in one single year, but that's what we're up against. I think there's been a lot of promises made. And I think that, again, having all of those promises come together in one bill makes for a pretty hefty outcome. You just said they made campaign promises that they have to fulfill. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work? Well, I, you know, they made the campaign promises again with the significant numbers they have with a supermajority. I think they are fully expecting to fulfill every single one of them. Typically, if it's a closer, if it's more balanced, it's something that I've been asking for for a number of years. I think Vermonters would like more balance to make sure that different positions are heard and at least listened to. Then you get a better outcome. In this case, with the lopsided supermajority, I'm not sure that you're going to get much balance. And I'm not sure that, you know, to be perfectly honest, I don't know what choice they have either. To what extent has all this, what's happening this year, got you thinking about the 2024 elections and what might need to happen in order for the Republican viewpoint to be better represented in this building? I think certainly need to run with better candidates and get started as soon as possible to do that. Where they are, I don't know. But what I hear from people is there's a lot of apathy and they want me to solve the problem for them because they don't feel as though they have a voice in the legislature. But we know with the supermajority that and they have the numbers that that's not always going to be possible for me to stop anything. They typically say, why don't you just veto it? Well, that's one way. But as we've seen over the years, they have the numbers to override that. And I have no doubt, but they will in some cases. And do you view yourself as, can you imagine yourself playing a more robust role in fielding the kind of Republican candidates that you think would succeed in getting them into the next? I think I'll, most of them, if they had a willingness to run, maybe just follow our playbook. It's worked pretty well for me. All of those bills that mentioned, hey, believe the DMV fees, property taxes, school meals, good concerns about the cost, is it safe to say those might end up in vetoes? Everyone or is there a path forward? Yeah, I mean, there's still time. I don't know what's going to happen in some of the conference committees. They hasn't, not all of them have passed both bodies. I think there is some disagreement, for instance, between the House and the Senate on paid family leave or childcare and some of the ways in which the Senate, for instance, paid for their childcare bill by taking away the child tax credit that was just put into place last year. I think the House is sensitive to that and would like to put that back in. So I think they have to come to agreement as well. So it's not just about the legislature against me, it's the dynamics within the legislative process itself between the House and the Senate. Senator Kitchell was debriefing her colleagues on the budget. She said that they have added into the FY24 big bill, the set aside for match funds. Is it, on that front, is that budget to a place where you have been spending more money? Well, they spent more money. They spent actually, spent more money than the House did. I mean, on the transportation infrastructure match money specifically. Well, I think that, you mean, yeah, but they spent more money and borrowed more money to do so. I mean, they used different approaches to get there. So my, if it's in the big bill and they've raised taxes and fees and increased spending that I think is unsustainable, that's not good enough for me. I appreciate their efforts in trying to meet the match but they spent a lot more than we had proposed. And I don't believe this is going to be ongoing, the base amount is an incredible increase. I think the Senate themselves is a 13% increase in base spending over last year. Ours was bad enough. Ours was 8%, but 13% is incredible and that's higher than the House. I think the House was maybe 12. In the Senate budget, I believe in your budget as well, I think for the GA housing, which as you know, is going to come to an end this summer. Some advocates are raising the red flag saying that they're gravely concerned of what this could mean if potentially thousands of people are exited from hotels. How do you see that conversation playing out as, as folks, if there is not more money allocated? Well, the general assistance program is not ending. We've been advocating for more low income housing, obviously, to try and make sure that there's a more permanent housing for those who don't have it and we're making some gains there. Shelter capacity increase in the number of shelters. That's what we've been working on and continue to work on. There are a number of initiatives that are out there. I thought to Representative Woods' proposal that I don't think is included anywhere, but it's got some merit. She had identified that there are a number of lots open in some of the mobile home parks. Now, whether they're open or whether they have dilapidated mobile homes on them, I'm not sure, but it's something that I've asked my team to look into because there may be some opportunity there as well. We've got our work cut out for us, no doubt, but I don't believe that the numbers are going to be as grave as some people are saying. So you don't think that there will be potentially that as the number has been floated? You don't think that, why not? Well, I think they're going to, I mean, we didn't have this problem to this magnitude before the pandemic. And I think that there was some who took that opportunity to move out of their present living conditions, which might be with family and friends and so forth. I think some will go back to what they had before. So I don't think the numbers are going to be quite as stark as some people are contemplating. And is that just something that you feel in your bones or is that based on whatever assessment of your team is going from the interactions they've been having with folks who are real? Yeah, I think it's a little of both, to be honest with you. I don't know, as any of us know for sure, we've never been through this, right? And again, this is because we're out of money. We're not, we don't have any federal funding for this. They were footing the bill before and we simply don't have it. Now, there are a lot of choices to be made. I know that, again, I said that the legislature had made a lot of promises, whether it's paid family leave or whether it's childcare or whether it's anything else. I think that might be a higher priority for them than this provision. Otherwise, they would have funded it. You? If you don't mind, I'm just gonna pivot to a different topic for a second. Back in September, you said that you would meet with ODINAC personations and their leaders. And as I understand, you haven't done that yet. And I'm wondering why. I have not. I mean, I'm focused on Vermont at this point in time and meeting the obligations that we have. We have a legislative process moving forward right now. And it's something that has taken, sucked up a lot of time. So I just feel as though that's not as high a priority for me as it is for them. Do you have plans for any of them in the future? I don't know. We'll see. Again, my priority is here in Vermont. Oh, this is their ancestral territory. I'm just wondering why it's not a higher priority for you to meet with the folks who... Well, again, the legislature took action about 20 years ago and recognize the Vermont Ab and Ackies. And that's what we are today. You said you were going to meet with them a few months ago. Now you're saying you don't have nothing to do with them. What changed during that time that took you from a place where you were planning on meeting them? Thought that that would be a good idea to now where you're not so sure? Well, that was a comment I made when I was in Quebec. And it wasn't a planned opportunity. I think the chief there came up to me during a press conference and said, would you meet with us? And I said, sure. So I still may, but it's not a high priority for me. It's not something that was... I officially sent them a letter saying that I'm going to meet with you in any certain period of time. But I mean, it still may happen, but I have no plans at this point. You did say it in a press conference in September here. And you said that you wanted legislators to be there for it. Well, the legislature, the legislature took action on this 20 years ago. And this is a legislative issue. So legislature should be involved if it's going to be. Again, I haven't heard the groundswell of the legislature asking for this meeting. Maybe you have, but I have not. And if they want to meet, if the ONAX in Quebec have contacted the legislature and the legislature wants to meet and have some sort of a meeting, I will consider that invitation. But at this point in time, it's just not a high priority for me. I don't know as I can say it any clearer. You continuously mentioned your stance on a lot of these fee hikes and tax hikes and a lot of these initiatives that you've mentioned today. But you also have mentioned that you're willing to work with the legislature. And the speaker has said in recent weeks that she wants you to have a seat at the table, but two sides aren't really budging. So I was just wondering what the conversations have been like in recent weeks. Well, we have a seat at the table in every committee that we're invited to speak at. My cabinet is my voice. They are speaking for me. So when my cabinet is invited to testify in a committee, that's what we're doing. We're at the table. So I think for anyone to say that I'm not at the table is being misleading. I mean, we're there, but we're not always asked either. But in terms of behind the scenes when you're talking to the speaker, or what those conversations are? They're both the pro tem and the speaker. Now my position is pretty well. Do you see any compromise coming in terms of that, or do you think they're pretty stuck on what they're doing? Hi, that would be a question for them. From your perception with your conversations, are you confident that? I continue to relay my position. You're faced with the prospect of the enactment of a number of different policies that you just don't believe in. And I'm wondering as the head of the executive branch, how you go about executing major pieces of policy that cost enormous amounts of money when you think it's the long direction for a lot to go? Yeah, I mean, we have to follow the law. And that's what we do. We're trying to do the best we can with what we have and trying to move forward in the best manner possible. So I try and separate the two with our team. We try and put forth whatever has been asked of us and has been put into law either by signature or otherwise or overriding the veto. Slightly related topic, maybe Secretary Samuelson can weigh in as well. There is a preliminary report issued from AHS regarding last year's rate hikes for service providers, mental health, home health and hospice. I believe it was 8% last year. You showed that the staffing actually in some of these agencies has gotten worse and wait times have gotten longer. Have you seen that report or any comment? I have not. Secretary Samuelson or Monica Hutt, can either one of you comment on this? The report that you're talking about is the one that reports out the results of the funding that was put into the agencies last year and not the 8% increase. That was a base increase to their budgets but instead increases that help with retention and recruitment. The report that we put out has demonstrated similar to other workforce issues in Vermont that relief has not come following that funding. But I also want to echo as it was echoed in the report that that report was generated just months after that retention and recruitment dollars were put out to those organizations and they are just implementing some of that work on the ground now. I think what we're continuing to see is demonstrated the fact that as the governor said, overall we have a workforce related and demographic related issue in the state of Vermont that's gonna take time and significant effort to resolve. So you don't see this as being more of a systemic issue about maybe how money is flowing through the system or how providers are paid. This is more just a time question that we're talking about here. I see it as the fact that in Vermont we have a larger demographic and workforce related issue and it is hitting our healthcare and our healthcare providers significantly harder than some of the other sectors following the pandemic. But as the governor said over his last six years, Vermont's workforce and demographics are changing significantly. And then we need to pay attention to that and that we may need to do our work differently going forward. We're not simply gonna be able to pay our way out of this. We'll go to the phones and we can come back to folks in the room. We'll start with Ed Barber, Newport Daily Express. Ed Barber, we'll go to Tom Davis, Compass Vermont. Thanks, Jason. I may have answered this question before, but what are your thoughts about Governor Sununu deciding if he may, do you think it's a good idea to thank him as the president? Oh, I think that's a decision he's going to have to make. It's a difficult, I would think a difficult decision to step up on the national stage, but he's been making the rounds over the last couple of months, so he's preparing himself. So we'll see what happens. He has not talked to me at all about this presidential run or potential presidential run, but I think he'd add a lot of life to the primary. And I think that's healthy. My truck, it's doing great. We probably have, it's the Ford Lightning Electric SUV, and we probably have 16,000 miles on it. It survived the winter very well. It went through the snow. I was very impressed with how it got through with a low center of gravity, with the battery so low and the trash control on every wheel. It was impressive. So, all's well in that department. You said you're going to keep it for a while. Yes, absolutely. David, Radio Canada? There is a question in the chat from that person. David, if you want to unmute yourself, it's a little small. Otherwise, we can see it right and we can get back to you with the response afterward. Pete's going to read it for you. All right. David asked the governor, Governor Scott, about the four Abnaki tribes in Vermont, genealogy reports I've consulted seem to line up with the criticism from the ODINAC that many people claiming an Abnaki heritage in Vermont may not have an Abnaki ancestry. What do you make of that? I don't have any opinion on a genealogy report. I haven't seen it. I don't know how it was taken. I don't know if they gave a DNA sample. I just don't know. So I think this sounds like something the Vermont Abnaki's should answer. Any more about it? Again, I am not going to get caught in the middle of this. We took action 20 years ago and recognize the Vermont Abnaki's. This sounds like it's a dispute between two factions within the Abnaki and ODINACs. And I think that they need to settle it. It's not something that I'm going to get involved in. Are there questions in the room? Up and down. Oh, a shop accident. This press conference started. Speaker Kowinsky sent out a statement regarding S5. Unfortunately, in her instances, misinformation is deliberately spread to create fear and uncertainty amongst Vermonters to sidetrack the conversation from the real issues. This year, that bill is S5. She proceeds to quote your statement from last week and is saying that there's deliberate misinformation being spread. And I wonder what you think about it. I think all this could be solved by this bill coming back after they've done the study that they claim is a study and a report that comes back from the Public Utility Commission, put into bill form, and then goes through the normal process, through the committee process, through the House, through the Senate, and voted on, and then moved out just like any normal bill, and then comes to the executive branch, the governor, for signature or not that would solve everything from my perspective, everything. But I don't believe that to be the case. And if I have that wrong, then just simplify it, put it in language, put it in the bill, and clear it all up. To accuse someone of deliberately spreading disinformation is a pretty loaded thing, the accusation to lodge against someone. I mean, do you have a response to that? I'm getting hardened to politics. And I think that this is just typical politics. I think there's been a lot of misleading information on both sides, possibly. Everyone is very concerned about this. So again, I would say it could be fixed. Just put it through, just say it. It's going to come through the normal legislative process in bill form, go through all the appropriate committees, be debated within the committees, and then debate it on the floor. So for monitors, understand what they're getting themselves into with their eyes wide open and making sure they understand why we're doing this and what the cost is going to be if there is one. And then they can decide, legislators and whoever the governor is at the time can decide whether to sign it and move forward with it. But it's just transparency. I think it's pretty simple from my standpoint. But apparently, they think that I just don't understand. But from what I've read and what Ann Donahue did on the floor, I think she did an incredible job dispelling what this really does, dispelling the fact that it's just a study. Thank you all very much.