 Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for being here. As you know, expanding access to child care has been a top priority since my very first day in office. Six years ago, back in 2017, I started talking a lot about what I called a Cradle to Career Vision for Education in Vermont, where we focus more on early care and learning, as well as higher education and trades training. Back then, I proposed increasing child care subsidies by $7.5 million every year, which, at the time, was a pretty big deal. So with that in mind, I just want to remind everyone how far we've come. While $7.5 million was a lot of money back then, the legislature actually cut it down to $2.5 million. But we kept pushing, and we were able to chip away and dedicate more and more each year. For the point that in my first six years as governor, we doubled our investments in child care subsidies, which was significant. It's also important to remember the plan I put forward in 2018 that would have dedicated online sales tax as a result of the Wayfair decision for child care, which now generates tens of millions of dollars each year. For reference, it was $62 million in fiscal year 2022. Unfortunately, that too was rejected by the legislature. But since then, the legislature has come around and agrees this must be a priority, which is encouraging. As you've heard me say many times, we share similar goals and priorities. But where we differ is how we pay for it and the speed in which we get there. Last year, we expanded child care subsidies to 350% of the federal poverty level. To put that in perspective, a four-person household at 350% of FPL equates to about $105,000 each year. Knowing we all wanted to go big on child care this year, I propose using $56 million in organic, ongoing base revenue growth to bring the subsidy up to 400% of the federal poverty level, which would have made us tied for the most generous state in the nation, tied for number one. That would mean middle-class families with household incomes up to $120,000 a year would have access to support, helping about 4,000 more kids than we help today. When the Senate House appeared to be at a stalemate in May on child care, my team approached legislative leadership about a path to get to 450% of FPL, with a 10% rate increase without relying on new and regressive taxes. But there was no apparent interest. Instead, they seemed determined to raise a new tax, any tax, so they ended up with a regressive payroll tax. Their plan would help households making up to $172,000 per year, which is 575% of FPL. So if you're a lower-income Vermonter already receiving free child care, under their plan, you would have to pay a tax so that more affluent families get support, with no added benefit to you. Vermont is already one of the highest tax in least competitive states in the nation. The last thing we should be doing is making it worse. Proponents of raising taxes and fees will always point to the amount raised in silos, trying to say, it's not actually that much. But what type of thinking, but that type of thinking, adds up year after year, and it's what's made Vermont one of the highest tax states in the nation. Even this session, I've sounded the alarm about the cumulative impact of all the new fees, taxes, and penalties that were discussed. That's why I felt as though I had no choice but to veto their regressive tax plan. I want to be very clear. I know some headlines will probably read Scott vetoes child care. But I'm not vetoing child care. I'm vetoing the payroll tax. As we've already discussed, no governor in state history has been as committed to funding child care, and I'm very proud of that record. I believe we can eventually get to where we all want to go, but we need to do it in a measured way to make sure it's sustainable. And what I proposed is sustainable. And if our economy weathers the economic storm clouds we're seeing, we'll be able to take additional steps in the future. I believe it's this type of reasonable approach that Vermont has elected me to bring to the table. And I hope legislators will join me because we can care for our kids without making Vermont less affordable. So with that, I'll open up the questions. What are tonight, can you say that you will be or have vetoed S-56, the Senate brought you over? I'm sorry, yeah, it's an H bill. But yes, have you already or will you? I have already signed the letter. We have not sent it to them. But it will be done in the next hour. You have the number of that bill? Sorry. It's 270. There was bipartisan support for this bill in the House. I mean, quite a few Republican lawmakers came along understanding your concerns about the payroll tax. Was it a close call for you? I mean, was there part of you that thought maybe this is such an important issue and that this is a place where it's OK to raise money? Well, you know how I feel about child care. And that's something that we've been working on for the last six years and focusing a lot of attention on that. So yeah, it was difficult. But in my seat, you have to look at the cumulative impact of all the tax and fees that are being raised and look at the economic health of the entire state. And this much in one year gave me pause and I decided that this is not the time to be raising this amount in a payroll tax. Now, the payroll tax itself, especially when we have all the surpluses we have, and there was another way to get there. The payroll tax itself has been used before in this way. And it opens the door for a lot more. It's easy year after year. Once the door is open, I guarantee because it's just a little bit out of everyone's pocket that they'll be going back to the well time and time again. I imagine this is one of the bills that once they receive your veto letter, once we come back for the veto session, this is going to be one of the ones that they'll be taking up, I imagine. How will you make your argument to some of those lawmakers, as Peter said, had that tripartisan agreement on this bill so that you can potentially sustain that veto? Well, again, I'm just gonna make the case like I'm making it today. It's the cumulative impact. There is another path forward. We can do it with organic growth and we can do it without impacting those on the lower end of the economic scale. Like I said, this is a regressive tax, flat tax. It affects everyone the same. But impacts, in some respects, those on the lower end much, much greater because it's the same tax, whether you make 50,000 or you make 500,000. What would you have supported in income tax more, which would have been more progressive? Well, again, I would have taken a look at that. But I do believe in a measured approach. Something, again, that we've worked on for the last six years and it's worked out pretty well. Again, as a reminder, and I said it in my remarks, but if we had gone with a proposal that I put forward, the 56 million out of organic growth, out of existing resources, we would have been tied for number one in the nation in terms of generosity. That's a pretty bold statement. And we can get further if we continue to pay attention to our economy. We'll grow that organic growth and be able to do more in the future. So I just think there's another path forward. Earlier, you said, if you're lower income managers, you know, who's below 150% of FPL, this bill comes law, you will be paying a new payroll tax, but there'll be no added benefit because you're already getting free childcare. But wouldn't that same family be benefiting from a childcare center, for example, that's not in crisis, but it's able to retain staff. That's, you know, from a sector that is itself more stable, might they not be able to actually find a spot that doesn't exist right now because... Well, you're under the assumption that this will actually grow the number of childcare centers. I'd like to see that matter. I know that we're going to be increasing rates, but I'm not sure it's gonna be increasing capacity. So if you could, or somebody can show me that, that would be interesting. I mean, I've heard it framed more as a childcare stabilization initiative that we're gonna see huge numbers of childcare centers, home and community-based going solvent if there isn't some rapid infusion of substantial dollars. Well, $56 million used to be a lot of money. And that's what we were proposing. So, I mean, I just think there was another way to do it. We were proposing a major, major impact. Again, going back to the way for your decision, right? We asked the legislature to go along with us to dedicate that funding to childcare. And they said, oh, it's just not enough. It was probably, what, three or four million or something like that in the first year, but it's grown to 62 million now. Had we taken advantage of that, coupled with the 56 million, we wouldn't be talking about any taxes right now. So, again, I think that- I mean, I don't recall them saying it's not enough. I recall them saying it's a rate on the education fund because there's a sales tax in that. Well, it wasn't dedicated to that at that point in time. It was a new tax. It was a new provision. So it would have been easy when we've had surplus since. So I just think that we squandered an opportunity there. I gather from statements that you made in the past that relate to childcare, that you viewed the 56 million dollars in your budget proposal as an investment, an investment that was going to yield returns, economic benefits to the state by virtue of, young parents having access to childcare. Why not view this legislative package in the same terms that childcare is the thing that is going to have economic dividends down the line that we're going to get more dollars and we put in for it? Well, because with our proposal, we end up taking a loan to do it or making mortgage payments. That's basically what we're doing now. We're asking for monitors to make payments on this, mortgage payments to pay for it. We did it with existing revenue. It makes a huge difference. Do you plan on campaigning for a sustained vote? Are you going to be working this? We're going to be working anything we vetoed, we'll be making our case. I don't know about campaigning. We're not going to be taking out any ads or anything of that nature, but we're going to make our case. To who? I mean, are you going to be calling into the dual lawmakers? Well, again, we're going to be doing it in the court of public opinion, I think. I think that's the only hope we have. They obviously, I mean, I've said this last week, they obviously have the supermajority. They have the power. They've proven that they can override any of my vetoes. They just have to hold people together. And as I said last week with the budget, the likelihood of them sustaining my veto is pretty slim. I think everyone will come home eventually and they'll put politics and party ahead of doing the right thing. Well, I'm going to wait until three o'clock this afternoon to announce your decision, might not one. We're ready. I mean, there's a lot going on. There's a number of bills we have to go through. We have until midnight tonight. We thought we were doing a favor by having it early. I didn't think you wanted to commit an 11. So we, and we have, you know, the veto letter has to be crafted. I mean, there's things that have to be done. We want to do it in a measured way. So there's no strategy behind it. The mayor of Burlington yesterday said that he's prevailing on you and your administration to partially extend or tell housing for some of the most vulnerable folks. They say if you complete them, where they are until February, they will find shelter for those folks after that. We've been hearing that month after month after month after month after month. This is the latest plea. Your response to the city's request? Yeah, I, again, we will take that into consideration, but we have to end it sometime. And I know there are other proposals they've been asking. They asked about the Cherry Street building. They have the right of first refusal on that building. So if they want to buy it, they are welcome to do so. I mean, there's a provision in the capital bill for that. If and when we get that to my desk and sign it. Any updates from you or your cabinet on how things are going from where you sit? I might ask the experts if you want to give them an update on what you're hearing and seeing. So as folks know, we exited out of the general assistance program around just a little less than 800 individuals. I have to say that I'm really proud of the state employees who for months have been working with individuals to help them design and develop plans. And for the service providers that the agency works really closely with. We recognize that this transition is really hard for many Vermonters and I want to acknowledge that. But what we're seeing on the ground is that the majority of the individuals have had a plan. They've moved forward with a service provider. And this mirrors what we've seen in the past for the end of our adverse weather conditions policy. And so we're not seeing a lot of pressures on the downtowns or a lot of crisis and mental health. And so, so far, while we recognize the impact it has on individuals, we feel like the transition has gone relatively smoothly. Can you say that the majority of the heads in plan, where does that come from? Is that like data that you're collecting? We've been monitoring the distal impacts. What are we seeing in our communities? And we're not, and we haven't seen the pressures that many folks anticipated or expected. When we've talked with and worked with clients that we've been working with for months, they have been able to find alternative options. Those have ranged from paying for hotel rooms to extend them stays because they work to moving back to their home communities. So there've been a variety of different options that we've seen that folks have exercised. But is that just like a feeling or is there like a, or their number is like, you know, 25% are in shelters, 10% are in nursing homes, et cetera. Again, this is an economic services program, the GA program. And so when individuals leave the program, we don't have a way, they're individuals. We've been paying for their hotel rooms and we don't have a mechanism to fully track but we watch what's happening in shelters, emergency departments, public safety. And so far, this has been a relatively smooth transition. Not sure, Governor, if you wanna have anything. I think Secretary Samuelson pointed out numerous times over the last couple of days that her team is ready, willing and able to help anyone who is finding themselves without a plan, without a place to go. And we have services that we can help point them in the right direction, help them out and we're eager to do that. So if anyone knows someone in this situation, please reach out. I don't know which department they should reach out to. Department for Children and Families. Department for Children and Families has a website. It's established and it's set up. And if you see something, we definitely wanna know about it. We're there to help and support folks. And so you can find contact information there and we're definitely out there to support the clients of the agency. Governor Sunoonin said that he is not seeking the presidential, the GOP nomination for the primaries. What do you make of this news? What do you, who do you see, I guess, as sort of that middle lane sort of moderate, if you will? I don't know about the middle lane moderate, but I'm not surprised that he decided not to run. But it was his decision to make. I think, I think former Governor Christie will make life very interesting during the primaries. So stay tuned there. I think he will be a bit of a rabble rouser. What do you mean interesting? He's just very quick-witted. He's, he will have a lot to say and it should be, it should be an interesting campaign. You expect him to challenge the president on a lot of issues. I do, I do. So Chris Christie, somebody, you're keeping an open mind? Oh, sure. Yeah, I'll keep an open mind about Governor Christie. He was someone I got to know back before I became governor. He came here to speak, as you might remember, to the from GOP. We weren't allowed in. Oh, you weren't, that's right. Sorry about that. Well, you could have paid, right? No, we were, we were barred. Oh, you were, sorry to hear that. We'll, we'll see if you'll come back and give an encore. But he was interesting, again, his wealth of knowledge and has a lot of opinions. What do you think of Governor DeSantis? He, again, I don't think anyone was surprised when he made his announcement. I don't know him all that well. I don't think I've even ever formally met him. So, so I don't know him as well as some of the others. I know Aisa Hutchinson. I guess Governor Burgum is talking about entering the race as well. Again, very, very good governor in North Dakota and wealth of knowledge in the energy sector in particular, and came from the IT sector. So, he, again, is just a good person and well, it'd be interesting to watch him as he goes through the race. Could you contemplate supporting Governor DeSantis? We'll see how this all plays out. You know, we've got a long ways to go. Governor, this is a different childcare problem. Some out-of-state drug cartels are used for juveniles in their Vermont drug trafficking operations for schools of sounding the alarm about violence and mental illness. And I'm just, I think maybe we could be seeing a potential spike in juvenile violent crime. Are we any closer to a secure facility? And also, picking up on something that Secretary Sanderson said at a recent press conference, are state workers now watching potentially dangerous juvenile offenders in hotel rooms and in their own homes? Well, again, part of what we're seeing in the hotel-motel program gave us pause because we didn't have eyes on them. We couldn't provide the services they needed. And so, one of the benefits of moving away from that program is they will be able to see some of the problems, hopefully, before they come to fruition. In terms of using young adults for, as mules, so to speak, bringing drugs into the state, we're fully aware of that. And it's one of the reasons why we fought against the raising the age in judiciary because we're known to drug traffickers as a state that is lenient towards the youth. And they really don't face any repercussions as a result, so they really use them to benefit their drug trafficking. As far as state employees, sort of personally watching juvenile criminal dangerous juvenile offenders in their own homes or in hotel rooms, is that what I meant? Secretary Sanderson. Yeah, so we have been working very diligently, particularly around this issue. We ended months ago, it's maybe even more, as much as a year and a half ago, staffing juveniles in hotel rooms. And as far as I know, we are not staffing them in individuals' homes either. That would be against the policies of the department for children and families to staff them in their homes. So, no, we do, the staff do. Staff juveniles who have had interactions with the court systems. Typically, some of the locations have been police departments. There's a sheriff's office that we've staffed children in that, but no, we do not staff them in hotels or in their homes. Go to the phones, starting with, we can come back to the people in the room. Town Davis, come with us for a moment. Thanks, Jason. No questions today. Thank you very much. That's it. Thank you. Thanks. Open primaries. I don't know if you still support open primaries, but as you may know, Dean Davis back in the 60s, late 60s, thought it might encourage more participation if we didn't have just registered Republicans, registered Democrats, and the parties. It's a disagree. It didn't work out that way. The election in 2000, when Fred Tubbell was elected against Jack McMullan, and the primary, the Democrats, when I worked in the elected, which he promptly endorsed Pat Leahy. And in the recent election, national election, the Democratic strategist picked out a number of states where they ran ads to encourage Democrats to vote against, well, for the weakest Republican, and they won in six cases, which caused the blue wave, red wave not to happen. Do you think we should go back to the Republicans nominating Republicans and Democrats nominating Democrats? I think if you have a contested primary on either side, it draws people in. I think what we have right now is working to be perfectly honest with you. I'm not sure that I would have made it through a primary or two had it been a closed primary. Okay. Governor, you signed S-100 yesterday. Just from a macro lens, macro level, how do you view this bill in terms of, is this the first stepping stone, the first roadblock that was kicked down for real reform? Or do you think this law has constituted will actually make a real difference? Yeah, I think this will make a difference, but it's not real reform. We have a long ways to go in that regard, especially with Act 250. It's something that I've been talking about for the last six or seven years. We need to modernize Act 250, but this is a step forward. And I'll take anything we can get at this point in time. I don't know if you know if Vermont is sending any officials, any firefighters to Quebec to help with the fires? Yeah, we did reach out to Canadian officials in Nova Scotia and Quebec. And they told us what their needs were. We weren't able to fulfill those needs. We're fairly dry here and we're down on staff as well. So we'll keep in constant contact with them and do everything we can to support them if it becomes even worse. But at this point, we weren't able to send anybody there, but we did reach out. Governor, I have a question. Getting back to the budget for a second, maybe Mr. Kresschen can chime in, but in your veto letter, I believe, you said that this will potentially raise the average household cost for household, about $1,200 a year. Can you shed a little light on how your administration arrived at that number? Yeah, I mean, there's, Mr. Kresschen probably could do this better than I could, but we just equated the average for modern and took the tax pressures fee, pressures, and add them up. And that's what he came up with, but going out to the affordable clean heat standard as well, which is a couple of years out. So it's not immediate. So with those, like the S5 costs, those would be, those wouldn't be implemented for a few years. That's right, in a couple of years. In my post-pluget veto conversation with Senator Fulveruth, he talked about that $1,200 a year. And I can't remember exactly what he said, but you know, basically he was saying that's made up and fake. And he definitely didn't lie. What did he come up with? Well, his argument was specifically because you were using the, this extrapolating from what you assume will happen to fuel costs, if S5, well, S5 is a lot of it. If lawmakers come back and actually do vote on it, and then fuel dealers do increase. I look forward to his, what he thinks the increase will be. I'm sure he agrees there's gonna be an increase, right? He seems to believe that fuel dealers would likely raise their. Right, so there'd be a cost increase and the cost pressures with all that other taxing fees that they're contemplating and pass into law. I'm sure you must have a figure in mind, but maybe you can ask him that. Well, I think he could probably say, well, we ordered a study and we'll see what the actual figure is. Well, not just with S5. I'm talking about everything else because we took the cumulative impact. What is the cumulative impact without S5? I don't know. I realize we can reach that. I mean, you talked a lot in recent weeks about serving as a check against Democratic supermajorities in the House and Senate. Are you that anymore? Well, not as effective as I'd like to be, obviously. We'll see what happens at the end of June, but it's getting more difficult. This has been one of the more difficult years. We, particularly with less engagement with the legislature, we were just a bit of a speed bump along the way to their passing, whatever they wanted to pass. How has that affected the way you view your job and your job satisfaction levels? Well, I don't keep track of that, but I would say we continue to keep our head down, plug along, do the best we can to serve from honors and I'll continue to veto bills that I don't think are good for the economic health of Vermont. And regardless of whether it's satisfying or not satisfying, and I think it's just the way we do business. So just call them as we see them. Governor, Senator Doug Hopper says that the agency of digital services you created is underperforming. Do you agree with that? As compared to the previous agency of digital services? I believe, did you not create that? Yeah, we did, I was being sarcastic, I'm sorry. You know, this has been an incredible inflationary time and I think some of the biggest things we've seen throughout, whether it's in B-trans or buildings, general services or agency of digital services or in our own daily lives going to the grocery store, the prices have gone up incredibly in every sector. And digital services has felt the impact as well. So I think that was the biggest criticism that he had and obviously anything we can glean from anything he produces will work to get better. Thank you all very much.