 Welcome to Channel 17, Town Meeting Television's legislative close-up, Essex Edition. My name is Elaine Haney. I'm a member of the Village of Essex Junction Board of Trustees and the Town of Essex Select Board. We are here in Martone's Market at Five Corners, and my guest today will be Senator Phil Baruth and Representative Linda Myers. So Linda and Phil, thank you so much for coming out to breakfast with me today, or coffee at least, and chatting about what's important to Essex in terms of what's happening in the State House today. We have a lot going on, so let's start with one of the most popular topics in the State House right now, cannabis. So there are various scenarios of tax and regulate and going around and allowing for sale. What are your thoughts on how municipalities are going to be able to weigh in on this? Are they going to be required to opt in, or will they be allowed to say, we don't want it here? Are they going to be allowed to regulate how it's advertised, or where it's sold, and other kinds of things? Can they put a tax on it? What are some ways municipalities are going to be able to somehow control the sale of cannabis? I don't actually have a problem with municipalities making a decision on their own as to whether they will allow cannabis to be sold there. Taxing, too. I mean, a lot of the communities already had that 1% tax, and I think that should be part of it. Excuse me, I'm a Republican, but I don't have... You're safe here. No, I don't have... I'm not as opposed to cannabis as a lot of people are. I have to tell you that last year I spent five weeks in Portland, Oregon, and one of the things I said to my sister who lives there was, take me to a shop, to see exactly how it... And I have to tell you, I was very impressed. Now, she took me to the best shop in Portland. She didn't take me to the little ones on the street, you know what I mean? But I thought if we can do it that way, you know, where it almost felt like you were walking into an office, a doctor's office, they only let so many people into the actual room where they had the products for sale. So it's not like a convenience store. No, no. But I would like the communities to be able to have a decision on that. All those years on the select board, I feel that there's a whole other issue about communities having decisions, but we'll pray, right? But I think on the cannabis, I'm okay with that. Okay, how about you, Phil? So we just, on Friday, passed a bill out of Senate Judiciary. I sit on there now. And that bill makes for a 10% excise tax, 2% local option tax, or up to 2%. Included in that 10%? No, so that would be 12. Okay. And it's an opt-out system for municipalities. Okay. So you have the right to declare and want to vote. And then if your townspeople don't want it, they can opt out. The thinking there was if you reverse it and make it an opt-in, one of the things that's happened in California is they did an opt-in model. And so what they have is a kind of supercharged delivery system that exists in the part of the state that doesn't have recreational cannabis. And so we didn't want to have cars driving around with product and cash. Oh, please, yeah. And so the idea is to make all of the stores secure. And so we went with an opt-out model. Okay. The other thing I would say is people should understand that the Senate's bills, going back now five years, have all been secure from seed to sale. And what that means is just like with alcohol, Vermont is a very heavy control state. Yes. So if you go into a liquor store, the state owns those bottles and we retain control over marketing everything. Right. How it shipped the whole nine yards. It would be the same with cannabis so that we would literally track from the actual seed to selling and weighing and then recreationally selling the product. So do you think the revenue generated from taxing cannabis is going to be sufficient to pay for the build out of that system to regulate and track? Absolutely. So usually when you set a fee, the fee is to pay for the system. And in this case, we'd have additionally taxes that would generate more money. So there are fees associated with this for licenses, for cultivators, for wholesalers, for retailers. So those fees theoretically pay for the system. Then you have the 10% excise tax and the up to 2% local option tax. So the question really will be, and my friend on the house appropriations will be one of the people answering this. This revenue stream generated by recreational cannabis will go somewhere. This bill in the Senate puts it into the general fund and the appropriations process. I'm going to put in a very early plug for using part of that money for education. So I like to say tax regulate, educate. Okay. Education around cannabis. Well, both educating people about the dangers of misuse of cannabis. But also higher education in the same way that we dedicate liquor proceeds to the ed fund. I don't see anything wrong with taking part of the X millions of dollars and dedicating it to, let's say, our state college system, which has a, you know, a situation going on where they're underfunded. And this seems like a likely way to help them out. How often do we get a revenue stream that good, right? However, I disagree with the senator in terms of what the tax should be. Oh, okay. I think it should be higher. Higher. I think it should be higher. Because these things are 92% at the moment. That's what they're going to be taxed at. Right. I think it should be higher. I don't know. I mean, you know, they're floated originally 25% or something like that. I don't think it should be that high. Okay. But I think we have to look at something that at least 15%. I'm just really concerned about paying for the whole program that the state is going to have to initiate to get this thing going. And I'm, and if we want, and I feel if we want to have money for other issues like education, we really need to go a little higher. Okay. I'm with you. So to get even a little more down into the weeds, the town of Essex is also the liquor control board for the town. And it comes time to renew licenses for bars and shops. Right. Will towns also have to take that role onto license or to approve the applications for the shops in their town? I think it's a good idea. However, there's a difference in terms of if you're talking from seed to sale. How the towns would be able to handle that in the towns that decide to do it. Right. Right now for liquor control, we're looking at issues with bars and that kind of thing. Yeah. In the bill we just passed, there's both. There's a cannabis control board that's parallel to the liquor control board. They're deciding where the licenses go, who gets a license. But then there's a local version in each town. Yeah. And just like they do now, they cite things. They have control over, you know, do you want to have these sorts of shops on the town? Right. Or do you want to locate them out in the warehouse district? So those things are all at the towns behest. In the bill it does say specifically that they can't do something that we've seen in Massachusetts. So they have something called a host agreement. And that is where a town says, give us $50,000 or $100,000 and we'll let you put a recreational cannabis store. Oh, that kind of sounds like a good idea. From a selection perspective, I think that's a great idea. So those are outlawed and some of the examples we had were crazy where there was a town that asked for $100,000 as a fee and then they wanted you to donate to the library X number of dollars. Wow. So extortion. Extortion. We came down against extortion. Okay. That's probably a good thing. Well, we'll see. I mean, it's going to be very interesting. I know residents of Essex are very concerned about where it will be available for sale. And if it is available for sale, can advertising for it be reduced in such a way that it's not influencing youth? Right. So that's specifically in the bill. Okay. The other thing I would say is that this is not a done deal in that the governor has laid down a marker on roadside testing. Right. The problem there is that the technology is not available. Yeah. As it is with a breathalyzer to tell how much a person is impaired at the roadside. So that's an issue that will be worked out in the house. Right. Okay. That would be interesting to see as well. You know, just remember when we put the smoke shop, when the smoke shop came here, what huge issue was it? It was a big deal. You know, a big deal. So I think that towns will really have to take a really hard look at how they're going to react to if it actually comes to pass. Yeah. I think both the select board and the trustees are going to start talking about what they might want. Yeah. Before we know what's coming just so we are aware of where we stand on it. So let's switch gears a little bit. So this is kind of an exciting thing. A bill was passed out of the Senate unanimously, I think, about limiting the number of senators per district. So, Chittenden, Tony. Sorry for that. Yeah, really. You're good on this one. So you're going to have to work a lot harder to get reelected if this happens. And so 2020 census comes, I'm sure we're going to be our population will grow into the point where we might even get a seventh senator. So three Chittenden districts. I mean, tell me about, how does that feel? What do we do? How does it work? Right now, my district has six senators. So I represent 125,000 people in Chittenden County, as do my five colleagues. Nowhere else in the country is that the case. I didn't know that. Yeah, that was the only county that did that. Yeah, the only ones. And in fact, our system, our constitution doesn't limit the number in a individual delegation. So we have lots of three member delegations. Those are all crazy large compared to the rest of the country. So most states have two or one to a district. So this bill simply says you can't have more than three in a district. That will mean that the six pack, the Chittenden six will be broken up. It remains to be seen. I think you're right that the census will probably add one more senator to this area. And this will be exciting for people in Essex. I don't see personally a way that you break up the district without building one around Burlington and one around Essex. And in that way, Essex will have what they've always wanted, which is our own senator. And a voice that's commensurate to their influence in the counties. The problem, though, geographically, though, is if you have a separate district for Burlington, then you've got Milton to the north and Shelburne to the south. And then over here with Essex, we've got Williston under Hill and Jericho and Hinesburg. What I have envisioned for years has been three districts in Chittenden County with one district, Burlington and South Burlington. That's it. Sure. Okay. And then one district to the south, which Charlottes, Shelburne, Hinesburg, et cetera. And then a district to the north, which would be Essex, Jericho, under Hill, Westford, et cetera, to the north. That looks to me like nothing's easy, but a logical way to look at how we would break up Chittenden County. And it would be, I'm assuming, just like we have, you know, this is 8-1 and we have 8-2 and 8-3, then it would be, you know, we would call it Chittenden 1, Chittenden 2, Chittenden 3. What I would say is I support this bill and I support breaking up the Chittenden 6. It would be hard for me to not represent Essex or Shelburne or Richmond, any of the places that have become, you know, alternative homes for me because I do hear from people, I do come out. So I understand it's not like having your own hometown person, but I've done my best. You've done well. And I do want to also add Senator Sorotkin, Michael Sorotkin, who does spend a lot of time here because he's been here for a long time. Absolutely. I think we definitely get our money's worth in terms of representation, but I do think from an equity standpoint, it's much more fair. And for people who are newcomers entering the process, trying to campaign in 15 or 16 towns is, you know, it's not workable. Well, and you basically have to expect to lose the first time. Right. And then the next time, so you have to spend another campaign and all that money doing that work, that also probably will lower the amount of money that is spent on a Chittenden County campaign race. And there's nothing wrong with that. Oh, no, that's a really good thing. Yeah, that's a good thing. Absolutely. Yeah. So it will adjust the balance of party representations significantly or the elder lying towns tend to be a little bit more Republican than Burlington. And there's nothing wrong with that. No. Well, I think that's right to a certain extent, but if there was a southern district of the sort you said, I think that would probably continue to be a pretty liberal district. Oh, okay. Yeah. Eastern district, I think, would lean more conservative. I think you're right. On a lot of issues. Yeah. So, you know, it's a work in progress at this point. Right. I for one hope it goes through. I think it would be a great thing for one. Well, it was unanimous out of the Senate. That's impressive. Out of the Senate itself? Yes. Okay. All right. So it's pretty amazing. Yeah. So how often does that happen? It helps to have the pro tem put the bill in. Wow. It's his district. So let's talk a little bit about another bill that's currently in committee with you right now. I think it's S37 medical monitoring is what everyone calls it. Yeah. It's a two-part bill, as you say. The first part says if you had a chemical spill, whether it was in the past or the recent past, and we can prove that you spilled it and you've caused harm, then you are strictly liable. Then the second part says that if there's a spill, whether you show symptoms right now or not, then the person who's responsible for this bill has to pay for your medical monitoring in the same way I think that a credit card company that has your information stolen sometimes has to pay for credit monitoring for you to make sure you don't suffer harm in the future. So the problem with the bill and the benefit with the bill, the problem with the bill is that some people say we're going to operate according to the law, get a permit, and then in the course of lawful activity, there's some spill into the groundwater, but the chemical isn't banned or controlled, and then 20 years in the future we find out it was dangerous, and now even though we were permitted at the time, you're holding us responsible. So that's the major problem we've been dealing with. But on the other hand, let's look at Bennington. So Bennington had a PFOA spill of decades, you know, of exposure, and San Gobain, the company who was running the plant, producing Teflon and other things, they were in the know that these chemicals were dangerous. How do we make sure that if someone was affected by a spill, whether or not it was permitted, there are still people who are suffering? So who should pay for the suffering? Should it be the taxpayer, should it be the victim, should it be the person who did the spill? And the bill weighing those things comes down on the side of saying, look, nothing really matters except you caused the harm, you made the profit in so doing, and now you have to pay for the results. So I have a concern with that. I have a concern with the portion that says 20 years down the road, we can still be responsible for it. I think that obviously if something happens immediately and people are affected by it, I see the need for whatever medical help care, whatever those people need. I just have an issue about how far down the road we go to specifically say it was this thing, this spill, this whatever. 20 years from now it could be something else that makes you sick, and I think we really, really have to be careful as to how we craft that, how we look at this. I feel absolutely that the companies, the businesses should be responsible if there is a spill like the PFOA, that kind of thing, but it's the distance, it's the length of time. It's almost like forever, and there's the issue. So I have two questions about this spill. One of them is what if the release is a one-time, like a bad spill, but on the whole, the company has had a decent track record. And the other is how come, is there anything built in about willful knowledge, willful negligence, because in Bennington's case that company knew for decades that they were poisoning the water in Bennington. But compare that to a company that has a one-time spill and it was an anomaly, but 20 years down the road they're equally as liable as St. Cobain, how do you square that up? And this wouldn't affect people's remedies otherwise in law. So things like gross negligence or willful misconduct, criminal misconduct, those remedies would also be available. This would be in the case of something where you couldn't necessarily prove intentional conduct, but you could prove that the spill over time raised the level of the chemical and the blood of the people who lived there. So a single spill isn't going to tend to do that. A single spill will... But someone could get exposed to a single spill and have repercussions. Usually in these cases it's over time your level of lead, we talked about earlier, rises in the blood. In the case of Bennington it was PFOA. So those people are getting medical monitoring and they're checking very carefully that blood level as well as the levels in their wells and stuff like that. And so those levels you can scientifically track and model with computers and you can show the places where the spill went out into the groundwater and over time brought people's levels up. In that case, does it matter if they meant to do it or if they knew they were doing it? This spill says no, the state of play, the facts on the ground are that we can demonstrate this spill into the groundwater over time. We can demonstrate the elevated blood levels. Someone's going to have to pay for that misconduct, who should it be, taxpayer victim or in this case, the spiller. The only concern I have with this is the fact that we are so focused on Bennington and the PFOA. It's one of those things that happen that suddenly everybody starts thinking, well we've got to take care of this in one way or another. And sometimes the state of Vermont has a tendency to go too far in trying to remedy a situation Bennington and the whole issue down there absolutely has to be taken care of. But I have a concern as to how far we're going to go for other businesses throughout the state. Well, and just from, Global Founders is right up the road. And Essex has experienced multiple layoffs. The workforce is a third of what it used to be. And we hear about other companies leaving. This feels like something that has Global Foundries written all over it, to be honest. They use heavy chemicals in their work. And so what would be the reason for them to stick around if we're going to have a rule like this? It's worrisome for us here because we don't want to lose our largest employer. And then of course we have smaller manufacturers out in the town who are also doing work. I get what you're saying from the victim perspective and that the Bennington situation is really bad. I worry that this widespread reaction would have some negative consequences economically. And we also have to remember if you're going to look at Global Foundries, Global Foundries has been a star in terms of maintaining the health of the land and what they've been doing over the years from IBM and Global Foundries celebrated 60 years last year. They have always been known. The company has always been known for making sure that whatever they're using doesn't get out. So they're being good corporate citizens. That's the model we want. And obviously for me the goal is to make sure that everybody is operating in an environmentally friendly way and staying here and making money and providing jobs. I don't think it's a choice that you have to say either we have jobs with environmental pollution or we don't have jobs. So if you go back and look at San Gobain and their policies 30 years ago, they were not good in terms of disposing. So people at companies the size of Global Foundries used to take their waste, not Global Foundries, but there have been cases all over the country where big chemical industries would take their waste in barrels and bury them on abandoned land, thinking okay in 50 years it'll biodegrade and of course it doesn't. So I think Global Foundries is from everything I know following good practices in terms of their chemicals and we want employers like them. So this is not in any way to tell people don't let the door hit you in the butt. This is make sure you do with your chemicals what you know is right. Now aren't municipalities included in this requirement because the Public Works Garage has got a lot of oil and gas. No, I believe municipalities, League of Cities and Towns presented compelling testimony and so they are at this point they're carved out of the bill. Oh, okay. So there's another topic that's very contentious. They all are, aren't they? All of them. So in Essex we've had over the last many years we've had a lot of situations involving gun violence and most recent being the death of Andrew Black which was very unfortunate and has resulted in some bills being put out. So last year after the Fairhaven threat the governor signed three different bills I believe. Three bills with five provisions. And against a lot of objection which I kind of thought was pretty brave of him to do that and why do we need to add to what Governor Scott did last year? That's kind of my question. You want to start? Well, I think the initial came from the issue in Essex with the wait period. The wait period, back from a couple years ago. Right, with the wait period. Obviously I understand the parents, I understand their heartbreak and what happened. And I have to say that I'm not necessarily opposed to some kind of a wait period. I think that the Senate bill says 48 hours. The House bill says 72. I am definitely opposed to the 72 hour. But in the end I don't know if that would have made that much difference because we can never know what was on that young man's mind, you know, that kind of thing. So as far as I'm concerned I don't have an issue with that. It's the length of time. I think, you know, 24 is a little too short a period of time. 48 is fine. I don't go along with what the House is talking about right now. So let me just go to your question about what was on the bill, wasn't last year enough on guns. Let's go back to what we were talking about before, environmental laws. Let's say that we had the weakest environmental laws in the country, you know, on the order of Mississippi, let's say. And we had a narrowly averted tragedy and we managed to pass a couple of bills tightening our environmental laws. Would we the next year say, we can't tighten our environmental laws anymore because we did these things last year. And so with guns I think people, because we passed some things last year, we still have the weakest gun laws in the nation by some estimations. With that said, I think the governor was brave last year. I give him complete credit for not only signing the bill but signing it in public. Shumlin didn't do that in 2015 when he signed a little tightening of gun laws. He did it behind closed doors, which I thought was cowardly, frankly. So I give Phil Scott credit. In this case, the Black family, wonderful people going through a very, very tough time. They're calling for a waiting period. I put in the Senate version at 48 hours. To me that seems like something that would speak directly to the quiet epidemic of suicide that we have in Vermont. So our rate of suicide is 35% higher than the national average. And the single best predictor for whether a state is going to have high suicide rates is the percentage of home ownership of guns. So it seems to me that my bill has two provisions. One is the waiting period, one is safe storage. Having your gun unable to fire, locked up if you're not in control of it. But I think it's likely that the waiting period moves forward in the discussion. So I'm not wed to making sure that both parts pass this year. If we could bring the law forward that the Black family has called for, I think that would be an excellent move to make. I remember from a couple years ago there was a safe storage bill. I think Linda Waite Simpson was promoting that as a result of another suicide mess. So you think maybe this year that might be more... And can I just give a shout out to Linda Waite Simpson? Please, yes. She worked hard on this topic. She was a pioneer on this issue. People say she was voted out because of her stance on guns. I don't see it that way. I think it was taxes that was the issue that year. But she was there. She was outspoken. And I have a lot of respect. Not afraid to poke the bear. Exactly. Yeah. I agree with that about Linda. I think she worked hard and did what she felt she had to do. Now as for the senator's bill, as I said, I don't really have much problem with the 48 hours. I do have a problem with the safe storage. I just feel that if you are a responsible gun owner and there's no way to say whether you're responsible, but let's face it, we do have responsible gun owners in the state of Vermont. We absolutely do. And I think that that goes a little farther. The safe storage goes a little farther. I'm a gun owner. Okay? The gun is in one spot. The bullets are in another spot. The gun has a trigger, a lock on it. It's not in safe storage. I know where it is. Nobody else knows where it is. But it's not in a lock box kind of thing. So I just feel that, and I have no reason for saying that I think most gun odors are careful about how they store their guns. So I would definitely disagree with the safe storage portion of that bill. And I think right there you can begin to see where we could reach some kind of consensus to this session where, as I say, I wouldn't be against removing the piece that it seems is less likely to reach consensus. So if it was a waiting period, and the other thing is there have been a couple of pieces that my colleague John Rogers has put in. The magazines. He wants to tweak the magazine. Frankly, he'd like to get rid of the restriction on high-capacity magazines. But if he can't get that, and I don't think he can, he has a couple of pieces. One to allow sporting competitions with high magazines and the other to allow the grandfathered magazines to be passed to family members. So, you know, if a final compromise involved some mild pieces like that and a 48-hour waiting period, I think that might bring in, you know, I'm not going to say everybody, but a clear majority of the House and the Senate. How do you square up the magazine limitations now with the fact that we have a magazine manufacturer in Georgia? Well, we've known that before. We knew that before we passed the bill. Okay, I mean, we knew that was what was going, you know, that was an issue that was brought up that we talked about, you know, and that kind of thing. So, we cannot, in any way, shape or form, say that that company cannot continue to do what they're doing in Georgia. Exactly. It is what it is. You pass a bill, you pass a law, and you say, okay, there are things that are going to happen. So, they manufacture here. It goes someplace else to be sold. It's as simple as that. See why we send things to the House. Great. You guys have the lofty ideas, and then the House has reality. Is that what that is? Going back to the environment, because we talked about it a little while ago, I believe there is a, if it's not a bill yet, it's a proposal to, or the governor had it in his budget address, to pay for lead testing in all state schools, and then to provide funding to assist the schools in remediating any lead that they have. What's, you know, what's the extent of that situation in Essex? Has Essex already started doing that? I have not heard anything, but there are, there are a significant number of schools who already have gone through the process. Okay. So, what are we talking about? How many, two hundred and ninety some schools are in the, in the, yeah. Well, for districts, maybe two hundred plus, but the bill, we just passed this out of education and sent it to the House. So, again, unanimously. Okay. So, what it says is that any public school, any independent school, and any licensed child care center, including home-based centers, those are all covered. Free testing for all of those participants. Okay. So, the state picks up the tab for that. If you have a problem and you have to swap taps, or you have to do work on your pipes, the state will be there for you to the tune of fifty percent of the cost. The reason this came about was the Department of Health did a pilot program last September. They tested sixteen schools. They found all sixteen had at least three taps that were testing at concerning levels. So, just a quick shout out to the Senate President, Pro Tem Tim Ash. He went to people in the Senate, including the Appropriations Committee, and very quickly, we put together a plan to, it's now two point five million dollars that we passed in budget adjustment to pay for that. Okay. So, that's what's, and that's come over from the Senate, because we put the House Appropriations Committee, put like five hundred and eighty-five thousand dollars in the budget for the lead, with the understanding that the remaining of the two point five million would then be moved into the twenty-twenty budget, because the budget adjustment takes care of the last six months of the FY19 budget. So, it's now come back to us from the Senate with the two point five, and we will be sitting and discussing as to, you know, you know how the process works, you know. We pass the bill, send it to the Senate, the Senate changes it, sends it back to us, and then we have to decide will we agree with the Senate's changes, or will we go to, will we add an amendment to it to change it again, and then it would go back to the Senate, et cetera, with the eventuality of a conference committee to discuss this. Yeah, but I, you know, one way or the other, the House was certainly ready to go with the lead testing. I think it's very important. It was just a matter of where we were, what time we were going to spend the money. Yeah, I think we will all feel better knowing that all of our schools are going to get tested at the very least. Right. It's a really good thing. But you know what, lead testing is one thing, but also let's talk about school safety, okay? Because there's the issue of where our schools are after the whole Fairhaven issue, where our schools are in terms of what they've done. And I think there are issues still that schools are not moving forward. I mean, I went over to Essex High School last year and said, you know, what do you have? Where's the kids are now wearing badges to go in? You know, they've got a guy at the door all the time there, you know, because I walked in and one knew me, so there was no problem, but then there was another one who didn't, and I said, wait a minute, you know, that kind of thing. So I think that it is very important that we follow through and the schools follow through. And I don't know where that is in terms of the legislature, whether we've got a bill coming up or something like that. So there's nothing like that in the bills that you put through? No, there was $4 million in the capital bill last year that was going to be used to that. And if I'm not mistaken, they're already talking about another amount of money in the capital bill in terms of working on this. So that's something that personally I really want to see happen. Coaching at Essex High School for those years and all those people who came in and everything like that. And then you see what happened. We have to be thinking farther along than what we've been thinking about our schools. Our schools has always been a safe haven theoretically for our kids and it's not happening. No, that's exactly right. Last year there were grants between $3 million and $4 million. They got put out to different communities who put forward projects to use the money for. And it was quickly dispersed, it was very efficiently done and there were some real improvements. The governor recommended that we continue that this year. So there will be an attempt to put more money in the institutions budget and the capital budget. I would say if you think about the opiate epidemic, you know as well as I do, there are 15 or 20 bills every session that are designed to stop the opiate epidemic. And we've been doing that now for four or five years. So we've done a really comprehensive approach to opiates and we just found out that in Chittenden County the opiate deaths have come down 50%. That's amazing. Right, so it's working. With the epidemic of gun violence, so in my kids' schools they have to do active shooter drills. When they go to the mall, when you go to a church, when you go to a bar, you have to think about mass shootings. It is in that way an epidemic. It is nationwide. So we have to come at it in a number of ways. So we talked about gun safety legislation. We're now talking about money for school safety. And the missing component in the discussion is mental health. So our mental health system is weak, I would say. It's in some places near collapse. And I know that our Health and Welfare Committee and the Appropriations Committees are looking very carefully at that piece as well to try to figure out how to strengthen the number of beds, the number of doctors, etc. Yes, our mental health system is stressed to the point right now that if you read recently the length of time that people had to wait in the waiting room at the medical center, because part of that is mental health. And we've got people who are in the hospitals with mental health issues that are there for an inordinate length of time because there are no beds. And part of the issue is the federal government, which has been doing it for years, we have this rule against institutes of mental disease. And you are only specifically to have a certain number of beds if you are a standalone. Ever since Irene took down Waterbury, I worked for several years on institutions as we were trying to figure out a way to do this. So we came up with a facility in Berlin and we have the seven beds in Middlesex, which by the way is going to be, which they're going to tear down and build a new one, that kind of thing. We just have problems that we have to try to figure out how to handle. So maybe the focus will start shifting to mental health more intensely than it has in the past in order to accomplish those kinds of things? Yeah, and all of the above, just like with the opiate epidemic, we've been successful there and I think to go back to the waiting period, places that have instituted that have seen a drop in their suicide rates. However, while we've seen the 50% less in Chittenden County, other portions of Vermont, other areas of Vermont, it has gone up. Down in the southern portion of Vermont, it's unbelievable. So what's happening? So what is it that we were able to do here that they aren't able to do down there? So another topic that's interesting, paid family leave. So there's two different bills. Two different bills. One is voluntary, one is mandatory. In terms of, I'm a small business owner here in Essex and I have 15 employees. I used to have 13 employees at the bookstore. I was thinking about if I would pay my employees well and then also have this paid family leave program, thinking back to my capacity as a bookstore owner, for example, I don't know that I would have been able to keep all 13 employees and give them all those benefits and pay them the minimum wage that we're proposing or a livable wage because I would love to try to have done that. So how do we balance these really small businesses with this benefit? The senator are going to disagree on this. Because I'm very much in favor of the voluntary plan, especially because of the number of employees that would be involved in the plan. If we talk state employees for Vermont and state employees for New Hampshire, that will give you almost an immediate idea as to how it works. And when I talk to small businesses like my former business, and when you look at the fact that 90% of the businesses in Vermont have 20 or fewer employees, that's where it really hits. That's where the problem hits. So I would be more than willing to really, really support the one that the governor and the two governors have put forth. I can't see supporting the Senate's version. So I was on economic development last year when we passed the plan that was vetoed. And that plan said it wasn't voluntary, it was mandatory, but employers were not required to contribute. So it was, employees paid a very small payroll tax. It was less than 1%. And it was something like $77 a year for a worker who was minimum wage. But the upside was that if they were sick, their family member was sick, they got pregnant, they had paid family leave of six weeks. So in my mind it was a great deal for people at the bottom end of the social spectrum and economic spectrum especially. With that said, the governor vetoed it. Now I give him credit and the Republican Party credit. We all campaigned on this issue last time. Democrats increased their margins in the House and the Senate. And the governor to his credit didn't double down. He said, okay, I'm going to offer my alternative. And so his alternative is it sounds good. It's voluntary. It includes two states and you throw in the state employees of each state and you have the beginnings of a viable risk pool to float this benefit. All I can say is that the research we've looked at in Senate economic development suggests that that pool would still be too thin to provide the guarantee that this plan can go forward, that it might collapse without enough participation. Because insurance is built on enough people kicking in premiums to pay for what you need to pay out. So actually what they're considering in economic development now, without me there, is that employers contribute to the system too. In addition to employees. So there's two questions. One is whether people, the individual worker will be voluntary or whether it will be mandated for employers. So now there are two things that we would probably disagree over. I think the governor should have signed the bill last year and he would have had a less progressive version than the one that's going to come out of the Senate now, which I will vote for. But as you say, there is a balancing act for small business. And he may not be able to veto that one. He can veto it, but he may not be. Well, and the house may pass something more like last year. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And you understand that on the committee that I serve, I hear nothing that's going on in the legislature. Because we meet five days a week, you know, from 8.30 in the morning until sometimes five in the afternoon or something like that. We never go on the floor except for a roll call vote. So consequently, after all these years in the legislature, I feel like I'm this person who doesn't know a lot. That's what's going on. Wow. Okay. Mainly because that we don't go down. Right. And so that's hard for me a lot of times to make decisions on bills and especially, obviously, if there's an anticipation of a roll call vote, I obviously read up, talk to people and that kind of thing. But sometimes the bill will come on the floor. It'll just go completely through. There's a roll call vote. I'm running downstairs going, what are we voting on? But the appropriations committees, and I think it's probably the same way in the Senate, is that we just don't hear the day-to-day because we've got this, the governor's budget is 1,088 pages long. Wow. And so we have this thing that we are constantly, we are looking at and so I feel sometimes left out of the whole conversation as to what's going on in the legislature. Are you hearing from anybody in Essex or Chittenden County? Are there concerns about the bill? Not about paid family leave. No, really? No. Either way. Okay. No, I mean, I think, you know, when we were talking about guns, I mentioned building consensus. I think things acquire consensus as they move along. I think there's a consensus now that a paid family leave program should be implemented. We're differing on the details now. Sure. And I think when it gets to that point, there's not the same motivation for individual voters to, you know, when they really get worked up is when it's, are you going to do something or not? Or not. So, you know, I hear more about cannabis. There's a sense that this is moving forward. Something's going to happen and we're going to end up with something at the end of the session. And I should mention minimum wage will also come out again. Right. And that will be probably the same bill as last year, instead of a five-year timeline to get to $15 an hour. I think what they're going with is a four-year timeline to get there. Again, because the governor didn't sign last year, had he signed it, it would have been a five-year rollout. So, oddly enough, because the election worked out the way it did, there are some more progressive proposals coming. And I think Phil Scott might be wondering why he, why he didn't sign some of the face last year. Well, I think we're good to go. So, thanks a lot. Thank you. Oh, you're welcome. Thank you for having coffee with me this morning. Thank you, Marton. Yeah, thanks, Marton. Thanks, guys. This was really nice. Thank you.