 We're back on the phone. Rich, what are we about to do? We've got a gun bill that you've got to have. To get into Ag's the only way I can get the gun bills passed. I wouldn't count on it. Yeah, it's not going to happen. Oh, you've got a bunch of gun haters in here, Robert. Yeah, I don't know. They hate freedom. Oh, you're starting. You want us to look at this bill? Exactly. Wow. Thank you very much. Real life. Oh, and actually in, okay, Michael actually brought a large print. I know you're getting a little older, Chris. Is this another? I'm a greeter. Wow, we have a hemp bill on shades. Okay, so this is a separate bill. Yeah, this is just an amendment. This is an amendment to that bill that he wanted to present to us. Another issue. And these are both on your one page by the way. Yeah, you computer guys have died on your one page. But so I figured if we weren't, we had a cancellation on me as well here, but he wanted to do it. Because the seed bill, the seed bill, that hemp seed bill will probably be getting out of here shortly. There's not a lot of opposition. And this would go in with it. So you want to welcome to the ag community. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Stark and committee Senator Rogers for your record. This proposal would move the allowed delta nine THC and hemp, which is now 0.3% to go to 1% and put it in state statute. This is something that I've been advocating for for some time both here in the state house and with our federal delegation and have talked with state legislators around the country about this issue. Something that's a problem in all the hemp states and now we're even more worried with the USDA's proposed rules around how they've got some real, crazy and restrictive stuff in it. And I think if we in other states get out in front and say, this is how hemp should be defined, that we have more of a chance pushing the feds to redefine it exactly like this. Vermont has probably had more investment in this single hemp industry than any other single industry in generations. I personally in the past year invested about three quarters of a million dollars between equipment and property to grow the hemp on. I know some of the processors have invested four and five million dollars in processing plants. A lot of the processors who have been set up for some time, some of the early entries into the market are investing in bigger machinery because as you've probably heard, so many people got into growing hemp this year that there's a glop of biomass on the market. Processors can't keep up. Therefore, farmers are sitting on hemp. So what happens with the majority of the strains of hemp? Similar to an apple. If you picked the apple two or three weeks early, it's not quite as big and it's not quite as sweet. And with the hemp, a lot of times for your high CBD containing strains to reach their maximum CBD or close to it, you have to let them go full term. And what happens in many of those strains, as they get closer to full term along the CBD level going up, the THC level goes up as well. And there's a lot of strains that will still go over the 0.3%. So if you have to pull those strains before they hit the 0.3%, you're losing two things. You're losing content. Your content might be 8% CBD. And if you let it go full term, it might hit 12 or 13. But you're also losing volume because that's when the flowers are putting on weight. In those last few weeks, they might add 10 to as much as 40 or 50% in weight. So it's a huge deal to anybody that's growing hemp, especially when the wholesale biomass market has dropped from over $100 a pound last year down to about 40 or $50 a pound this year and may continue to decline. So this is what I see as a simple way to deal with the problem of our farmers being able to grow good strains. When you turned it into a manufactured product, it would still have to meet the federal definition. So what happens? The 0.3. But with all the products that people make with hemp, you're adding other things like for topicals. You're adding different kinds of oils and maybe shea butter, coconut oil, sunflower oil, and this dilutes it down so that there's very literally trace amounts of THC by the time you've made the product. So you could still use the 1% product to dilute down so it would be all underneath the point. It would still hit federal compliance. And the other thing that a lot of folks are able to do is separate out the THC. There are products and processes that can take whatever the level of THC right out. I actually just had some isolate made, which is only CBD. It doesn't have the other compounds in it. Do you have or maybe Michael can answer? As I understand it, we continue to operate our hemp program under a pilot sort of permission. And does changing the definition in the middle of our pilot give us, jeopardize that? We like being in the pilot zone. And so I'm wondering if there's a concern or... I'll give you my perception and then let Michael give you the right answer. My perception is that because we do it in statute, it doesn't affect our program and we're operating under an approved program, but Michael may have a different view. So first we operate under the pilot until October 31st. And so this would only affect the pilot from the effective date until October 31st. The pilot is under the 2014 Farm Bill and that does define hemp as 0.3 THC on the driveway basis. I think really the question is would the USDA enforce against us between the effective date and October 31st, because effectively they'd be enforcing marijuana and cultivation. And I don't know. I would want to look at that letter from DOJ from a few years back about marijuana enforcement. So that is what I don't really know because it would be about enforcement of marijuana. Is there a thought of making this effective November 1st for that, you know? To guess why this makes sense. That protects our pilot clearly, but I'm open to anything. So then it's about getting approval of next year's hemp cultivation under the USDA approval process, under the draft. No, it's not draft anymore. It's under the interim USDA rule. And that defines hemp as 0.3 THC on a driveway basis with a margin of safety. When does that 0.3 kick in? Harvest time at product time? I mean it sounds to me, according to John, that it depends on what you do with that product. But the way the federal legislation is right now, it's 0.3 at any time, it will never go above it. And there are several problems, but the big problem is that test was originally designed by testing leaf and matter from the bottom of the plant. And now the feds have said, no, that's not how we want you to test it. We want you to take the top bud, which is the strongest. The stuff down on the bottom is the weakest. So they want to test the strongest stuff and take all the THC in it. And in most strains, that puts you over it. Or if you tested it the way the test was originally designed, and it's all described in the scientific paper, as I understand, that a lot of these plants would pass because if you mix the weak stuff with the strong stuff, it of course brings the strong stuff down. So, you mentioned that the product would still have to meet the 0.3 federal definition, but this draft changes the definition of hemp products and gets rid of the, with the federally defined THC concentrate level for hemp. So Michael, wouldn't that? I, Senator Hardy, you're right. If that was Senator Rogers' intent, I did not do it properly. Yeah, and this, I never get too hung up on a draft because they always get changed. That was not my intent to include the products. My intent is to protect the farmer. And there are several avenues we could take. If the committee is skeptical of bucking the feds on this, maybe the committee, I could work with the committee and we do a letter to the federal delegation or something, but there needs to be a change. And I think the states need, the hemp states need to try to band together and push the feds because what the USDA is doing at the federal level right now puts all the hemp programs at risk. And all that investment, I mean, I did, and I know tons of other, this is my personal story, but I know tons of other people did it too. I just made a giant investment based on the 2014 Farm Bill in the pilot program. And if they pull out the rug out from under me and all these other people who've invested all this money and it's part of their business plan on how they're going to pay back, literally across the state, tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions of dollars that's been invested, you're going to have a lot of people hurting. And so I'm trying to figure out a way can we as a state buck the system and will they let us get away with it? Because so far they've been kind of hands off on all the state programs, right? They've said, well, we're not going to enforce the marijuana laws on recreational marijuana. We're going to leave the states to do it. And so there's a chance that they might say the same thing on this. I'm just trying to figure out how do we as a state legislature protect the millions of dollars in investment in the huge influx of economic development and money into our systems that this hemp program has created because we've been a national leader in our hemp program and tons of people have moved here and invested here because of it. And I don't want to see the rug pulled out from under any of us. Are there other dealers that are growers actually that worked with you to help put this together? An association? There is an association that's kind of a loose coalition. There's lots of little groups, but everybody agrees that we have to change the definition and everybody's been freaking out. The whole hemp community has totally freaked out since the USDA released the draft rules. Michael, have you followed that stuff at USDA at all on hemp? I have. I've got the rule in my hands right now from conversations with Carrie. The last time I talked to him about this was about a month ago. He said he plans to submit the current Vermont statute and propose hemp rule as our state program and just see what USDA does because our program has the ability to grow basically up to one provided that the three alternatives for disposition you destroy your crop or you sell it to a dispensary or you contract with a dispensary to separate out the CBD and the THC to get it to a correct. So that was his idea to still kind of maintain the definition of hemp as point three but to see if USDA will approve that authority to separate out to bring it down into that point three standard. So that is a risk. It's a calculated risk as it's this. Wouldn't we be better off not to rock the bulk too much and hopefully try that to see if it slides through with approval rather than doing this that would maybe be an insult to it. As I said, this is where we as a nation need to get to. If the committee thinks it's too much of a risk I would ask is it maybe possible to get the committee to do a letter to our federal delegation and just talk about the investment in Vermont and trying to save the hemp industry in Vermont and that we need some changes and we're not... I know our ag agencies not happy with the USDA rules either so maybe you should have a discussion with them. Maybe we would be better off... I mean we want to protect the hemp industry but maybe we'd be better off to write a letter explaining the investments that have been made here and how we've done 9800 acres of hemp and do all the good stuff and we've done this by following our own little set of rules of the way Cary is promoting and asking to do in Washington and that we support Cary and the agency a bag and our hemp growers in moving forward but request this to be fully executed or thought of and analyzed. I don't know. What do you guys think? You know sometimes you catch more flies with honey and you do with vinegar. That makes some sense. What do those rules become, the rules? They are the rules right now but those states that were under the pilot program got an additional year to operate on the pilot program. So we could ask to have this as an extension to the rules or how would you do that? They aren't going to cut us out and say okay Vermont you can do this but the other 49 states have got to do it this way. So far they've been improving state programs which are all different, variations. Oh yeah, we don't all operate under the same state programs. You as a state have to send in your program and then they approve it. So we should just strongly support them continuing their practice and allowing the states the state to run their own program. That's basically Cary's position. Let's see if they're going to approve our program. We do have that kind of pressure release valve that is not contemplated in the USDA rule but you can make an argument that the USDA rule said it needs to be 0.3 plus or including a measure of uncertainty and that measure of uncertainty just needs to have a range that's under 0.3. So you could potentially have a test at 0.5 with a measure of uncertainty that says it's 0.3 to 0.57 and that would be okay under the USDA rule. And so theoretically our program with you can separate out or otherwise dispense with the crop that's over 0.3. It's similar. It's not a measure of uncertainty but it's a technique or a management mechanism to deal with what's over 0.3. The problem is this requires one to test over 0.3 for it to be destroyed and the US Attorney General to be contacted and for the state to implement enforcement. Yeah. And then the other thing is yeah and all the labs would have to be DEA certified which is another ridiculous step so basically what we would be doing by following their rules is subjecting all of our hemp farmers to be in locked up and fighting legal battles if their stuff tests a little hot. So. Like duck in a cell, right? Is that what you're maintaining? It's a crime. It's a crime. It's a crime. So what we should be doing is supporting Ag's request to be licensed and approved as submitted and maybe not even mention the particulars. I would want to come with Carrie about what they are submitting as the full plan and I want to be careful in whatever is written. Yeah. No and I would recommend that you guys have Carrie come in and make sure that he's okay with it but I think he would be okay with the additional support of the legislature behind him so it's not just the agency, it's this committee in the legislature that oversees this section of our law that's also saying, you know, this is what we need. Well. Is the committee agreeable to do a letter of support and we'd ask Michael to work with Carrie and see what they've actually done? Yeah. I'd like to hear from Carrie and see what's included in his plan before we say we support it so there may be things in there that... Well... Well, I don't think it's not the human seat. Yeah. I'm very interested in us being as assertive and frankly pushing back on the fence as much as we can but we need to understand... This new proposal is ridiculous that they want it if you go over. They want to lock you up and bring charges against you. So to move forward, we got Michael to work with Carrie and start putting together his thoughts to do a letter so we got to keep this wheel turning Exactly. And because... We just have 15 minutes with Carrie to... Yeah. And then we'll... And then we can just make sure that we understand what's in it and that would then... Well, I both Carrie and Michael in at the same time. Carrie can go through it. Michael's sitting there listening. And Stephanie, if you can't get... Carrie and Stephanie are going to engage in the law. Yeah. Okay. Excellent. So that worked for you, John, with all your amendments that we might do... A letter might be more beneficial than... I like sticking it to the man but I'm okay with playing nice today. For now. Yeah, for now. Yeah, there is. Now thank you guys. Very productive and I thank this committee for its help on all the hemp legislation. This is not... There's not still some bumps in the road. We're going to have to keep a jest in as we move forward but there's been huge investment and I believe there's huge potential for helping out rural Vermont and rural America with this hemp program if the USDA doesn't screw it up on us. Is that... Have you talked to a lot of supplier growers that are somewhat happy? They're happy with our program. They're not happy with the USDA. People are literally freaking out about this USDA proposal. And there's still an awful lot of people sitting on their product because of the bottleneck with processors and that's another thing. No processor is going to invest in new equipment because they see this USDA thing coming down the pike. There's no reason to invest anymore right now. So that's another big problem. And there are still some horror stories that we're going to hear. We heard about the one guy got locked up for not paying and I don't think that's the biggest one that we're going to hear about. I think there's another... That was their donor. ...bigger one coming down the pike. No, the CBD Vermont guy. It wasn't contracted with people. They grew for him and he didn't pay him. Oh, okay. But there's a guy that contracted about a thousand acres around the state of Vermont and told all his growers to round bale it and wrap it in plastic. And I think it's going to be mush. Is that the guy that wanted to use the prison? I don't know it. No, I don't think that's the same guy. That's going to be the guy Gladstone and Nelson and all those guys. All those guys grew for him and they got those round bales. They're still sitting on the farm and you can't wrap moist green bam. It's not hay. But didn't that guy... He just didn't pay the farmers though and that's why he got in trouble. So he was trying to screw... He got in trouble for lots of things. Lots of things. Yeah, he was not... I think he got behind on money and went downhill from the car. So... Thank you. I guess we're all set. If you're welcome to come back when we get... Sure. Yeah, let me know. I'd like to listen in anyway. Let me know when you schedule it. I'll be happy to come back. Yeah. Way more fun in here. My more... It is. Christmas is us. I'm sure. Just be careful how you introduce yourself. Oh, you?