 So anyways, we've got about 45 minutes that we can finish hearing from Kristen or or. And so you want to pick up where you left off the other day, Kristen. Sure, happy to. I think we have a couple of questions for the record, Kristen has with the agency of agriculture. So maybe you can clarify my understanding was that there were the committee had some questions about the. Requirement that we're proposing in this bill related to swine and allowance for 96 hours for people to sort of re gather, recapture their escape, domestic swine. Is that the area of focus for. Yeah, that that was a question that was raised and there may be others, but we can start with that one and. Sure, move on. Okay. So the reason so that the 96 hours was decided upon. Jointly by us and the department of the agency of agriculture and the department of fish and wildlife and we also had collaborated with USDA wildlife services on this language and so they were involved in the conversations as well. Basically, we came up with 96 hours for a couple of reasons. And again, this is the time that would be given to an individual. Pigeons. And the reason that we came up with that is that we already have a precedent established in the CWD rule related to captive servants, captive gear. When they escape. There is a requirement for the owner to notify the agency of agriculture by the next business day. Once they become aware of escapees, but then they do have 96 hours. To get those deer back into an enclosure. So we wanted to try and mirror that time allotment in this language. It seemed to all of us involved in the conversation, like a reasonable period of time to allow somebody to make arrangements to get their pigs back in while not being too long of a period such that we end up with more. Or the owner ends up with more issues of pigs, maybe dispersing further away or making it more difficult for them to, to be recontained. So it seemed like a happy medium between those two things. And then another point that maybe is worth clarifying is that, you know, this proverbial clock would only start. After notification. So neither we, nor the department of fish and wildlife are going to be pitching tents outside of people's properties. You know, looking for this to happen. So, so there would have to be a notification that would sort of set that starting point for that 90. 96 hours. And of course the goal would be to. To help ensure that people get their pigs captured again. That that's going to be, to help ensure that people get their pigs captured again. That that's the collective goal, not to do anything different than that. But we want to be able to have a reasonable period of time in which to act, should they be. I'm successful in, in containing them. So that's where the 96 hours. Comes in and, you know, as you can tell, it's not. It's not a more scientific proposal than, than what I've described. There isn't really science that applies here. It's more to do with operational soundness and fairness and equity with the, with the swine farmers and swine owners. So that's how we came up with that. Yeah. Thank you, Chris. Thank you, Chris. Is there any. I guess I'm struck that if a, if a farmer. Was being entirely cooperative and working alongside you to recapture the, their animal. That this still would take effect that, that, that. And I wonder if that's true in practice. In terms of, you know, taking an animal and just, could you help us understand that? Cause I'm wondering if we ought to clarify or have some distinction there. Yep. So the goal of the owner presumably would be to get them recaptured or recontain our goal. And, and I think I can speak for our partner agencies and say the same, our collective goal would be to work with them to do that. Even if they were unsuccessful, the owner was unsuccessful in getting those animals contained again. As I think the situation last year demonstrated. Our steps would be to try and provide, bring resources to bear to that situation, to just augment that effort, not necessarily automatically take a completely different approach. The thing that maybe is worth mentioning here too, an answer to your question, Senator, is that I mentioned when we talked on Friday that USDA wildlife services has a lot of expertise, equipment, supplies, et cetera, that they can bring to bear. But because they are a non regulatory portion of USDA, they need to be able to operate under some sort of state authority to bring those resources to bear. And so this is as much about identifying and clarifying that state authority so that we can engage those, that partner and help with the situation as, as anything else. I mean, and I, you know, the end goal is to have these animals contained again. So if there was a circumstance where people are just not making an effort or, or are failing in that, then, you know, there are a couple of different outcomes possible, but I can tell you that our first approach would be to bring those resources to bear and work with them to continue to be successful in that effort. So if you bring the resources to bear requires this trigger. Is that right? Is that what you're saying? Correct. Yes. What we, what we found out in 2019 was that in the in the circumstance there where there were escape domestic pigs that were located on, on neighboring properties and stuff, when we really dug down into the current statutory language and our rules and both we, the we being agency of agriculture and Department of Fish and Wildlife, we realized that we, we didn't have a clear authority to take any action under under which USDA wildlife services could, could act as our partners slash subcontractors to bring the, the traps and the cameras and the other resources to try and get the situation under control. So we had to shoot that. The scenario we were working with when, you know, through the higher ups of USDA wildlife services to try and clarify under whose authority would they be using federal equipment, federal funding to, to try and, and help. So this, this would clarify that. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but could I just have a follow up? Sure. Sure. So as we read through it, I would say for myself, it sounded like we were setting a clock at which point, if necessary, the animal could be killed, right? And, and because it's a menace, we haven't, it hasn't worked, but I'm hearing you say that's a little portion of it, but also it's really about bringing in federal resources to help recapture an animal. Yes, that, that can be an equally likely and a hopeful outcome of this circumstance. So, so is it actually a problem that it's a fairly long window? And, and could there be a bifurcated option where you could more quickly get federal resources, but have some time before Vermonters felt like their animals would be taken. While you've also got the resources that you have, to handle a, a runaway. So in other words, would there be an option for in that scenario, wildlife services to bring equipment and supplies and expertise prior to the 96 hours should somebody request it or, or be interested in that assistance? Yeah. I would hope so. I hope that would be the case. Once they're, once they notify the agency that their pigs are out and they're trying to collect them. Wouldn't, wouldn't the agency go within a day and try to see how they were making out. And if it was real difficult. Jump into help. I think by, you know, in, in a practical sense, from having gone through the situation last year, it, to coordinate that we probably would look at, be looking at a several day period anyway. So when push comes to shove, I think that that between the animals escaping, the owner deciding that they're not going to be able to mitigate the situation themselves. Contacting, the agency of agriculture and department of fish and wildlife, us then coordinating with USDA wildlife services. That probably is going to be over a several day period anyway. I mean, I can tell you that our practice would be. If somebody were to notify us on day one and a half that, Hey, my pigs are out. And I'm so far not being successful getting them. I'm not getting them. We would not wait until a magic 96 hour period to then start having conversations with wildlife services and giving them the heads up that, Hey, this, you know, this might be going on and, and we might be requesting your, your assistance. I can't speak for the department of fish and wildlife on that, but I would assume that their practice would be the same. And I'm so far not being successful getting them back in. We would not wait until a magic 96 hour period to then start having conversations with wildlife. And I'm so far not being successful getting them back in. And I would assume that their practice would be the same where there's not a. The 96 hours, I think should be looked at as. As. If, if the, if the situation goes in a direction where we have to take more permanent and maybe undesirable action, then we want to give people an adequate window. But in the instance where we are. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do these other resources. Probably it's going to take a several day period to coordinate that anyway. This may be how I would think of that. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just skimming through the language as you're talking. And it seems to me that the 96 hours is after the 96 hours. A loose pig is considered a feral swine. And. It's considered a feral swine, but it can be shot if it's a feral swine and can be, that's legal if it's considered a feral swine. But I don't see anything that talks about. Prior to the 96 hours, the agency. Of ag and natural resources will coordinate with the. USDA to help catch feral swine or to help catch the pigs before they become feral swines. And that's sort of what you've described, but I don't see it in the language. It just seems to me that the language is about. Removing feral swine, not about catching non feral pigs. Do you understand? Yeah, I, it's, it's a, it's a consequence driven set of language basically versus, versus. Language that captures what our normal practice in interacting with farmers would be is now and would continue to, to be. Even if this were to pass. So I'm wondering if it might be helpful to add some language that says first and foremost, we want to be helpful. We want to catch the pigs. So we preserve the. Animals of a farmer and protect the public from their, you know, damage they may do. And if we're not able to do that, we're not going to be able to do that. We're not going to be able to do that in the amount of time. And then these are the consequences if they're deemed feral, but something that says beforehand, we're going to be working collaboration with the farmer, because it, it seems like punitive and not collaborative in the language as it is now, unless I'm missing something, Michael. There's no specific. Reference to the agency or the department having. To coordinate with APHIS. An agency. To be able to identify authority over the welfare and management and transport. Of livestock. And when you read all of that authority together. They basically have the ability to respond to. An issue of a pig. Being loose. But this is about giving the agency and the department the authority specifically to manage that loose animal in a way that currently would be animal cruelty. And so I think you could have a specific reference to them coordinating with the APHIS or requesting APHIS's assistance prior to the 96 hours. I think they generally have that authority anyway. We could reference that and make it stronger. I think would you have any problems or that, Kristen? No, no. I just want to make sure that people don't think that this is just, you know, I think giving the authority to shoot a bunch of pigs instead of, hey, actually, our goal is to to catch them and make sure they're safe and everybody else is safe not to shoot them except for as a last resort, basically. Yeah, and now we we wouldn't have problem with that. I think the other thing to keep in mind and maybe Mike can think about this what new this nuances and that is where in this conversation talking about domestic pigs that escape, there also have been in Vermont and will continue to periodically crop up truly feral, you know, by everyone's sort of typical stereotypical traditional definition, feral swine. And those we we want to I don't we don't want to inadvertently undermine the Department of Fish and Wildlife's authority to, you know, a game warden is out in the woods runs into a more typical looking feral swine animal. There have been no reports of escape. No no reason to believe that this is a domestic pig that has gotten out based on the appearance or the reporting or anything else. We don't want to undermine their ability to manage that wild animal in the moment. So as long as that doesn't inadvertently happen, we'd be fine with the added language on the domestic pig side. Yeah, I I don't think we would want to stop that from happening. You know, if I want to take a wild boar and yeah, they they're really pretty bad. Yeah, exactly. So is the committee's in agreement with having Michael draft up some new language to add to our present language to allow for that or reference it basically. So the present language that's already in statute. Well, that's good. Any comments on that? Anthony, fine. Brian. You're good. So you want to do that, Michael? Any other any other questions for Kristen in regards to her proposed changes? And no, and Kristen, have you have you chatted with the House Committee on on your proposed changes? The two that we discussed on Friday during during your committee meeting. Yes, they well, let me back up. We did provide testimony on those back before this bill crossed over to the Senate side. I have not recommunicated with the House Ag Committee post Friday, but I'm happy to do that. If if you would like or Michael, if you think that's the best idea, maybe you've talked with them, I'm not sure. But happy, happy to reach back out to them. Yeah, I talked to them this morning. They asked the status of six, five, six, and I told them that the agency may come in and ask for a couple of tweaks that were caused by my failure to make the changes in the House Committee. Yeah. And any comments, Michael, back or? No, I just think that they are just curious as to the stats of the bill. That's all. Yeah. Any other questions for Kristen? No, no, Rose. Well, I just wondered if we are going to have every time Kristen's here, I'm like, oh, we got to ask her this. This is on a different topic. So is that OK since she's here? Should we have her back? It's more about our COVID relief package for Ag. No, you wait or you can. No, as we've got we've got time. So sure. So I don't mean to take you by surprise, Kristen, but I know that you're in contact with slaughter facilities and and the like around the state, and that has come up as an issue related to COVID and how they are busier than normal. And we have been discussing sort of generally about how to help the Ag sector. And if there are things that would be helpful for our slaughter facilities to keep up with the demand and also sort of ease the the potential for culled dairy cows into the slaughter facilities, if you've had those discussions or if their health related things that the slaughter facilities may should do in order to avoid the disastrous horrible things that are happening in the rest of the country or just any thoughts you've had in your discussions with those facilities just in general? Sure. So we have had the agency of Ag has had discussions one on one with several slaughter facility owners and managers, as well as sector wide conference calls with the slaughter sector, slaughter facility sector. And first and foremost, our message to them has been that it is hugely important for them to follow the PPE and the personal protective required, the health and safety requirements that are in place under the current order and to do that religiously, not only to protect their workers to make sure that there aren't unfortunate shutdowns of certain facilities, but also we have a vested interest in it from the standpoint of our own state employees are in those facilities as well, because they've been considered essential employees throughout. So making sure that they follow those requirements has been talked on our priority list and we've communicated that to them. I know that Ellen Kahler and some folks working with with her have put together coaching teams for slaughter facility owners who are interested in utilizing that expertise and those resources to try and troubleshoot some of those issues and the last that at least I was aware of Ellen reporting back on that, that had been, you know, a fairly successful. They were having good, good progress with that. I think I understand that there maybe has been talk or it's been alluded to that opening up or further relaxing the on farm slaughter allowances for for people to slaughter at home and then sell that product. It's my understanding that that's been discussed in different, different conversations and I just would use this opportunity to remind folks that, you know, we do have to maintain the the food safety standards that are in place and that's why there are prohibitions and limits on what can be slaughtered on farm and then what what the outcome or or disposition of that product can be. Certainly there perhaps is an option and I don't know of anybody who's pursuing this right now, but, you know, the whole custom slaughter situation. There's for expanding that that sector. Should somebody be interested in that? Because that would allow maybe more access for folks who are sending animals to slaughter and then intending on consuming that product themselves. So perhaps that could be an area that somebody might be interested in in exploring and, you know, could maybe do quite well at the at the moment. I'm aware of one federal establishment in Vermont. And this was several weeks, if not maybe a month ago, but they were looking at adding additional shifts to their operations and working with Food Safety Inspection Service to do that, to try and use some of the some of the burden as well. So those are, you know, that's been the activity on that front. And I think we've been very fortunate due to the good work of the slaughter facilities here to not be in the same situation as other parts of the country where that's been a significant cause, a significant backlog in in livestock movement to slaughter. The other thing that I was informed of by one of our employees who does the market reporting at two at our livestock market here in Vermont, as well as one over in Cambridge, New York, is that the price per pound for calves for dairy calves and for dairy, dairy beef has has gone up a fair bit during recent weeks. So that that bodes well for dairy farmers who are who are taking advantage of that market, too. They might be able to get a little better price for their animal at this point. Yeah, Michael, I just want to weigh in on this. The Federal Meat Inspection Act preempts state requirements. And I'm reading from a U.S. Supreme Court case, it precludes states from imposing requirements that are within the scope of the Federal Meat Inspection Act relate to slaughter house premises, facilities and operations are in addition to or different than those made under the Federal Meat Inspection Act. So I raise this because there's I've been asked to look at this material that's being circulated that says that states should amend their laws to allow slaughterhouses more flexibility. And it's based on assertion that Wyoming has done this. Now, Wyoming has basically adopted an on farm slaughter law like Vermont has. They haven't changed what the slaughterhouses are required to do because the Federal Meat Inspection Act would have preempted that. So if you're getting material that says you need to change or relax the requirements on slaughterhouses because Wyoming has done it, that's not accurate. And so you've already done what Wyoming has done and you did it four years ago. No, we're that far ahead. Yes. So four months ago, four years. Wyoming copy us. Pretty, it's pretty similar. Yeah. The Vermont law has more health and safety provisions written into it than the Wyoming laws. Yeah. Well, we don't know. And that that law is authorized under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, as is the custom slaughter. They are both exceptions to the inspection requirements under the Federal Meat Inspection. So just I just want people to be aware of that. There's some disinformation that's circulating among certain communities. That that's fake news, right, Michael? I just it's just an incorrect interpretation of the Wyoming law. Ruth, you had a question. I just want to follow up quickly. Thanks for that, Michael. I have not seen that. So I'm glad to hear that we are already, you know, better than the rest of the country. But Kristen is always on that road. Yeah, of course. It doesn't sound like you have any specific recommendations for slaughterhouses that we should take up at this point. But, you know, based on COVID, your it sounds like things are going well in terms of their health and safety and their operations. Do the OK. I just want to clarify to make sure, because it sounds like you said a few things that could be done, but not anything that you would say should be done. Is that well, I think that because these are pretty extraordinary circumstances, I think the way the method that's being used to try and ensure compliance and education of of owners and managers and their employees is perhaps more productive than, for instance, putting into passing a law that says, thou shalt do these certain things. I that's maybe my own just personal opinion. But I but I think this is a unique enough circumstance that the the education and outreach method seems to be getting more traction and more success than, you know, a hard line mandate and then punitive action if if things aren't aren't being followed. Yeah, that wasn't actually what I was I was asking if you if there was anything we could do to be helpful and if they needed anything that we should include in our relief package, not if we should put extra requirements on them. I'm glad that they're following the recommendations, but wondering if they needed additional support or anything that's related to COVID, you know, Senator, might I suggest and I don't know if you pose that question to Ellen Koehler and Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, but she has, again, they've done a lot of work and have had a lot of good conversations with the with the slaughter facility sector. So I think actually maybe feedback from those discussions would would be the best information that you could go on. The role we have with slaughter facilities is a regulatory role. So so it's a little bit of a different camp that you're talking about here. But I would urge you to reach out to Ellen, perhaps with that question, because she might have some suggestions for helpful relief components that are based on feedback she's received from that sector. OK, yeah, we have a list from Ellen. So I will get to see if it has anything about slaughter facilities on it. Thank you, Kristen. Sure. Thank you. And Kristen Longer on is there any have you heard any talk amongst the slaughter people about getting any contracts out of Southern New England for for native beef from us or anything anything along those lines because they've been a shortage, I know, in mass and and down that way. Senator, I have I have not. No, I've not been privy to those conversations. I mean, we're we're I think more of the conversations I have been in are involved with trying to navigate some of the movement of livestock into Vermont and into New England and the Northeast in general as a result of the bottlenecks elsewhere in the country. But but that's been more on the live animal side versus the, you know, the post mortem, the slaughter, the slaughter side of those conversations. So I'm not I haven't been privy to the category of conversation that you're asking about. Yeah. Other questions for Kristen Long, she's with us. If you don't have questions, I have one other question for you all. If if we have time. Well, you've got us. So I guess we'd better make. OK, well, I'll be brief. It actually is related to the swine language in six fifty six. And I think it's the result of the longer you sit with language, the more sort of Monday morning quarterbacking we tend to do. And after Friday's conversation in talking with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, we identified what might be an unintended consequence of the current proposed language, but that could be relatively easily clarified. And so I wanted to just run that by you guys. And that is that wondering if the if the committee would consider a slight adjustment to the notification language on in this is on page four of that condensed version online, too. And I can I can read it to you. It requires that. Can we just get oriented on the full bill? What page we're talking about there? Yeah. Is it the notification that the department shall notify the agency of Ag? Yeah, this position, a Farrell sign. Michael, yeah, that's on page twenty six. Subdivision five. And it's the paragraph it reads. Make sure I have the right one. OK, yeah, it reads any feral swine may be removed or destroyed by the department, the agency of agriculture or a designee. And I'm just summarizing here. And then it goes on to say the department shall notify the agency of agriculture, food and markets prior to the removal or destruction of the feral swine. The scenario that we got down into the weeds about on Friday is that and again, it goes back to maybe Senator Starr, your prior comment. If our state game wardens run across a traditional feral swine in the woods on the top of a mountain with no cell service and there's no no report of the creepies, these aren't domestic pigs. We don't want to undermine their ability to manage that wild animal in that moment. And so what we were wondering is if at the end of that sentence, there could be some clarification that the notification is required if it is a feral swine as defined by F1A, which would be the domestic pig category of feral swine. And then in the other circumstances, I mean, if a game warden runs across a Eurasian boar in the middle of the woods, they don't they don't have to be in touch with me or us or the agency of agriculture before they take action on that animal. And we don't want to create a situation where we're inadvertently requiring them to do so. Does that make sense? Yes. Well, yeah, I wouldn't think if there is a. There is a vast difference between a domestic pig that's been loose for a week than a wild boar has been wild for who knows how long. And I don't think we ought to mix that up. If they. I would think if fish and wild life runs across a wild boar, they ought to be able to take care of it without notifying anybody. I don't know. Is that something we could write in there, Michael, if the committee so chooses? Well, I think if you do what Dr. Haas has recommended that they would have that ability, they don't have to wait 96 hours to take a Eurasian boar. So I think if you just clarify the language in the way Dr. Haas has suggested, I think you you've given them that authority. Yeah, that fine with everybody looks like everybody's in agreement. So we could do that. Thanks for bringing that up. Could I just ask a question, Mr. Chair? Yeah, sure. I'm fine with that suggestion, Dr. Haas, I'm curious, would that be automatic that that the game warden would take take the boar? I mean, we just sort of have a zero tolerance for wildlife management in that regard. Well, I I mean, that would be a good question for them. But I would say, based on my understanding of our collective approach to truly feral wild boar, yes, that that would be what would be done. And that's happened a couple of times, mostly with escapees from a high fence facility in New Hampshire. And yeah, I mean, there's biology here that has to be taken into consideration. And sometimes if there's a group of wild boar, then then shooting them or trying to shoot one of them actually further disperses the remainder of the group, but if they come across a singleton animal that's by itself, then yeah, my understanding is that they need to have the flexibility to take immediate action on that animal. Thanks. Any other questions? No. I think years ago, many, many years ago, there was a wild game place down near fairly or down that way. And we had all kinds of problems with getting that resolved. So this would be good to get that taken care of. So are there other issues, Kristen, that you'd like to bring up? No, sir. No, thank you for the opportunity to bring that up. I know it's it's a little late in the game, but again, we stick with this longer and then want to help ensure unintended negative consequences of language that we're trying to put into place to do good things. So did you have any other sections in six, five, six that you're addressed on the health side? Yes, we did. We had let's see, there there is a weights and measures section in six, five, six. That on the oil trucks on the oil trucks. Yeah, that falls into the shop that I work within. We have a the change in the definition to amenable species under the meat inspection section and the and the removal of rabbits from that list, that that goes to meat inspection. We have some animal health related language in the bill that it was an inadvertent on our part, our mistake when we updated our animal health statutes a couple of years ago, we ended up creating a situation where livestock dealers, the record keeping requirements that used to be in place were were inadvertently loosened. And so what is in six, five, six is a reinsertion of that language to ensure that they keep adequate traceability records. So that was the other piece that I and colleagues I work with provided testimony on. I think that I think that was all of them. I think. Yeah, yes. So everything's fine and with with what your parts in the bill are fine. Yes, yes, indeed. Well, any anything else for Kristen from anybody? If not, thank you very much for your time, Kristen, and stay healthy. Yeah, I will do that. Enjoy the sun. Hey, thank you all. Yeah, you're welcome. So Anson still doing some conference things so he can't be with us. Linda, are you on? Yes. Did you get an email or a call or something? I got an email from him. And I also heard from Peter Sterling that you should be done by nine forty five tomorrow, so I asked Anson to come from ten to eleven thirty tomorrow. Yeah, and that's all OK. Anson is good with that. Yeah. So the only the only other thing I think we we've got to get this bill geared up as a committee and and go through it. Michael will probably have these changes by the next time by maybe tomorrow if we have time or but we should we we should move forward with it and try to get it maybe done up where we feel comfortable this week if we can can if we have time and so we can get it reported maybe next week. Rose. Yeah, I was just wondering if there's are there isn't an opportunity to add anything to this bill? Did you have any ideas on what you might have wanted to add? I'm trying to remember back to everything on my list, something that's come up is the the forestry, the carbon sequestration forestry bill that actually unfortunately didn't get to our committee, but is in natural resources. But there may be other things that sort of were left hanging wondering if there's any opportunity to add them here. Well, it's a miscellaneous bill. There's a zillion parts to it. I'm sure we can do whatever you'd like to do. And somebody could rule us non-Germain, but I I kind of figure out I I bet we can figure out a way around that. So I seek your guidance, Mr. Chair, I know you're the master of it. So that's why I was asking what your thoughts were. The milk bill that we talked a lot about off and on. Yeah, it's. I'd love to do that, but I I don't I don't feel comfortable with the timing right now with with all of the COVID-19 stuff. I I haven't talked to Michael about it, but I I think we're you know, we're up to our nose in in problems and it isn't a good time to try to push forward, you know, kind of a controversial, but I think very meaningful pricing system. It's you know, we just got too many damn problems facing us to to do that. I don't know if any of you have got an opinion on that. But I mean, not that I wouldn't like to. I just don't think I don't feel comfortable with the timing. Brian, thank you, Mr. Chair, I think that's true of I don't want to say monkeying with, but modifying this bill too much is as we are slowly seeing the available time closing in, if you look closely at the Budget Adjustment Act this morning, we're only going to be able to stay around until I think the 18th of June, which is about three more weeks. So if we change this bill, then it's going to go back to the House and they can either concur or not. And then you might wind up with a conference committee. So I'm not necessarily saying I'm against anything that people want to do. I'm just very aware that the windows closing pretty quickly. We don't have the luxury of being, you know, in the middle of February. Well, I think I think any changes that we propose, it would be it would be wise to run them by the House committee. You know, during our discussion, once we get them up to where we think it, the change should be run it by the House committee to see if we can get, you know, at least half of them to one more than half to support it. So that Carolyn can get, you know, an agreement on it. You know, move to adopt the Senate Proposals of Amendment and it's over with. So I think that would be a wise move, but a good move. Chris. Yeah, I agree with that, Mr. Chair, and I just mind, Brian, we are making changes of some kind, at least if we follow. So it is going back. We're not adding such yet, but yeah, no, I mean, your point is is a very valid one. I'm also curious, Mr. Chair. You know, the covid relief concept has taken a few turns now. The governor adopting some of our ideas and but not others and we're waiting to hear from the secretary. I understand that. But I would assume we're still moving forward with the proposal that we would send to you and others in a probes. Is that accurate? Well, we don't really know. Do we? I know they, they, you know, I've met with economic development and whether they're going to try to put this all through under one bill and but we're going to have to deal as far as I'm concerned, I don't care what goes to economic development, but we're going to deal with the egg stuff. OK, as I understand, I water, that's our jurisdiction. And I think Michael, Michael's good to work with on our side. And so, you know, I think I think we'll we'll be dealing with the egg material. But as far as I understand it, and I think we would all vote that yeah, Michael is OK to work with. As I understand it, I wasn't talking about a grady. I see you smiling. You've always been good to work. Sure, I can. I was good to work with those damn guys with the name Michael are just good people. Yes, I wish sometimes Senator Sorokin had Mr. O'Grady's ease sense of anyway. As I understand it, tomorrow, Senator Kitchell, part of our all Senate call will be a little bit of an understanding of how we're moving forward with COVID, yeah, right. We'll get clarity there. But I certainly I guess I'm wondering if you want, Mr. Chair, us to bring you people we'd like to hear from to inform that last week while you were out, we had come up with kind of a little bit of a framework to keep exploring, including some of the people we maybe would speak to. So we can talk about that offline. But I think there is we're not we're not going to have an abundance of time to Senator Collin Moore's point and and our ability to do interesting things and help the ag sector, you know, are going to require some time. Yeah, that that's why I I had a scheduled all week this week every morning. So I thought we could get, you know, ahead of the curve a little bit instead of dragging behind us. But sure, go ahead and and get your list lined up and and be thinking about, you know, you've already talked about some things you'd like to see added in and, you know, like I I'm kind of waiting on Anson to the numbers that he gave me last week. Well, I think it was Friday when they cut that all loose. You know, on the different farm sizes, I think those numbers are out of whack, you know, on proportion to like a small farm of under 50 cows. I had the written written down the number I thought that he gave me was like forty two thousand dollars. Well, you know, if you've only got forty two cows or fifty cows, and you're going to get, you know, that I think there's too much money there. And and then if you get, you know, the top in your pretty light one hundred and ten for somebody that's got, say, fifteen hundred cows is is light. So I think we've got to, you know, get some people in and talk about how that how that should be divided up and and I I want to make for that. You know, everybody gets you somewhat fairly, but I want to make sure that the small and medium guys get used good. And, you know, there's plenty of money there. So everybody should be able to get used fairly if we if we do the forty, forty million in the top end of that extra ten. I have not a clue how they're proposing to distribute that. And have you got any ideas on that or have you heard, Michael? The secretary testified to House Act this morning. He said that the agency is going to administer the program. There are seven hundred and sixty dairy, including goat and other, that would be qualified under the program. And they feel that they are confident that they can provide it's going to be a one time check for my understanding to the seven hundred and forty farms, seven forty or seven sixty. Seven sixty, seven sixty, yeah. And so there's there's a lot in that under fifty cows in some ways, right? There would probably and this is just a rough maybe two hundred fifty. I think that would probably be around that number. So that two hundred fifty to three hundred. Did they have it broken down in categories? How much? Yeah, it's it's the same cat. They didn't have the numbers broken like the number of farms broken down. They had it broken down to the way that you were just describing it, Mr. Chair, with the the small farm, non-certified, the certified small farm, the medium and the large farm. And the large farm would get one hundred and ten. The medium would get ninety. The certified small farm would get sixty and the small farm would get forty two. Seeing in the way we had hours set up. You know, we had the small guys getting under the two seventy five under a small farm, just getting like a five thousand dollar check. Did they say anything about verification that they had those kind of losses? They did say that the farms need to qualify and part of qualification is certifying losses or expenses due to covid. I don't know if they're going to self-certify or have some sort of vetting. I think self-certification would probably be the easiest. But that's that's my understanding. We had we had I thought some pretty good certifying language that that we developed, you know, that it'd be self-certifying, I believe, but, you know, that they at least had to do a little something. Yeah, I think the certification language in your bill was in the the non-dairy section and not in the dairy section. I we didn't have. I thought we clarified that that language in the dairy section to some degree. They had to be milking and they had to be in good standing. Yeah, we got to look. I don't know whether we've decided yet on that survey, whether they have to fill it out or whether it should be kind of like, would you like to fill it out? I see Senator Pearson smiling. So I have a feeling I know what side he's on. Rose. Yeah, I guess since we started talking about this, but I also I have a comment on it. But I also wanted to ask Bobby, did we get did we just get a couple bills referred to us from the House that are separate from. Well, we we got one. Is it two fifty four? But we got that one. But the other house bill, they shipped off to the tree reward one. We didn't get that one. No, that went to natural because they're in the forestry big time in natural resources. OK, so maybe the forestry issue that I just brought up that the carbon sequestration thing would be more appropriate on that bill if they want to. Well, you better talk to your county mate and have him put it right on. I'm sure he'd jump on that. I'm sure I'm sure he would, you know, ask and you shall receive. Yeah, well, I don't know. I'm just trying to figure out if there's an avenue left for that, at least getting part of it in there, the language. But why don't you check and see if he'll deal with that? And don't don't push the issue. But if he doesn't, we'll figure out a place to tuck it into our bill. OK, sounds good. And then I had a question for Michael since we were talking about the dairy package. I heard from a farmer in my district that the feds had figured out how they finally figured out how they're distributing their aid to dairy and that it's based on milk volume for the first three months and that it's really geared toward helping the large milk producers so that the larger dairy operations would probably see the vast majority of that funding. And it's not. That's not that. Is that not accurate? It would be just really helpful to get a better understanding of how the federal money is being distributed so we could, you know, dovetail ours, fill in whatever holes that is missing. It's the first. Michael's got it, I'm sure. If he wants to. But the first three months are at eighty five percent based on hundred weights, but capped at one twenty five. And then the next three months is thirty percent, I believe. And the following three months, if there are, that'd be thirty or thirty five percent of their based on their production. My anywhere is near right, Michael. I am sending you the press release from USDA that they released last week that has all the details in it. OK, that's great, because I think they came out with the rules last week. Isn't that correct, Michael, that clarified some? Well, yeah, the requirements, yeah. Yeah. So you're welcome. And it would be good to look that over before we have Anson on tomorrow, you know, so we got something to compare by. So Anson's not coming today. He's coming tomorrow. Yeah, he he was tied up. I got a note that he's tied up, but he's going to come tomorrow at ten thirty. Oh, OK, OK, I misunderstood. I thought we were waiting for him now. Well, that's why I'm not really rambled on, but let the discussion kind of float because he couldn't make it. And no, I wouldn't hold him up. And is we have a sense, it sounds like Chris, maybe you were saying that we might know this more tomorrow from our caucus. But, you know, the the the agency's package is fifty million total. It's forty for dairy and then ten for cheese. And I'm wondering if is fifty what we get to work with or do we have more? Do we have less? I mean, because we have a lot of pieces in our bill that are not included in theirs. And so it's, you know, I don't want to forget the other portion. My I don't know the answer. I believe that Senator Kitchell will help us begin to understand the framework that she's applying and possibly the whole you'll probably learn. I don't know. So I don't know exactly. One idea I heard was, you know, there's a lot of money in the governor's proposal for restaurants. You know, somebody wondered to me, well, why don't we hook that to make some sweetener to buy local farm, you know, produce or whatever, locally produced goods? You know, and that's where I think there's tremendous opportunity to help the restaurants and drive the money back into the local economy. And, you know, I think that the latest data we have is a dollar local generates about a buck six, the economic activity. So I'm hopeful we'll keep our eye on the whole thing. I'm hopeful, yeah, a gather. We'll have a little broader understanding tomorrow morning and then go to work to work for Derry, but also the broader economy. We have to do that. Yeah. And Jane is Jane's very supportive of our whole crew, you know, the little guys and and no, that that'll help. You know, a great deal. So, Michael, do you want to fool with those numbers a little bit and the money? You want me to call you and talk with you about how that could be divided up on a more fair basis, and maybe we could even keep a little of that money if it worked out right to do something else to help our small producers. Well, however you want to handle it, if you want to call me or if you want, I would prefer you to give me some direction on how you want those numbers to break down. Well, see, you know, you have to figure if there's two hundred and fifty little farms and and you they're proposing to do forty two million, no, forty, forty, forty two thousand, right? Right, right. Well, how that breaks out per firm. And then and, you know, you've got the small certified firms that sixty thousand each in in the number on them should be around the same, I believe, to to something two sixty eight and the medium size is one hundred and five of them. And, you know, ninety ninety is pretty fair for that crew, you know, but how it figures out. And then and see, you know, who's getting maybe too much and who isn't getting enough. And and. But anyways, any any other questions, Chris? Well, I just have a basic question. Senator Hardy mentioned the federal package and and I'll look at what Michael just sent us, but do you believe do you understand and we can ask Ainsons tomorrow? Are we meaning to supplement that, add to it or let that go where it's going and us hit what it misses? Yeah, ours would be totally separate and it would be to supplement supplement the federal losses and the some of the one of the big guys that I talked with off and on, Amanda, you guys all know Amanda St. Pierre. They're they're losing about seventy five thousand dollars a week on on, you know, their their cuts that they've had to take. Of course, they're a huge, you know, they're a big, big firm. But the average guy like Ruth's friend, Bill. That's your friend, Bill. He's my brother. Yeah, you're supposed to be mentoring him or he's your mentor. Bill is a mentor. I didn't know. No, I'll have to I'll have to clarify that with him. His his losses are, you know, much less than than that. They're like forty thousand dollars a milk check. The little guy that I talked with up in Holland, a small farm, his milk check one was five thousand less. In the second one was the next check was eight thousand less. So those little guys are taking it on the chin pretty hard, too. And and so, you know, we've got to be somewhat fair as fair can be to even that out. But we'll look over Michael's that federal program and and. Oh, I'll I'll look that over because I haven't I haven't seen what Michael's going to send us, so I'll look that over. See how much the little guys are going to get. Yeah, it doesn't have any of this. It doesn't have the specific number. I'm looking at it right now, but it does. It is mostly based on the first quarter. So I sent a second document from FSA and they have it as the chair was referring earlier for the months of January, February and March. The each producer is going to have the payment of four dollars and seventy one cents multiplied by the hundred weight of milk production for those months. So that's what they'll get for those months, which is going to be approximately eighty to eighty percent and then for four dollars and seventy one cents. Yeah. And then for after that for they don't have the payment for after that on the FSA document. But it's going to be based on a projected adjustment, which is effectively what they were talking about before the 30 percent. I have to get you more information about from March on. It's not in the FSA document I just sent. What it says in the site that I'm looking at is that for the paint, each eligible producer payment is calculated by multiplying the hundred weight of milk production for the months of January, February, March by the national adjustment of one point zero one four and by a dollar forty seven. That's for the second payment. It still seems like it's on the first quarter. Yeah, that's that's yeah, they break it down. There's the CARES Act funds and then the CCC funds, the commodity credit corporation funds. So the one dollar one point zero one four and one point four seven. That's the commodity credit funds. And then the CARES Act funds from the nine point five. That's that's the four dollars and seventy one cents in that first quarter. So so how much you don't have the 30 percent for the second quarter? Now, I don't have that that info. I'm going to have to get it from FSA. Yeah. Well, you work work on that then, Michael. Yeah. Yeah. Any any other questions or things that anybody wants to bring up? No, I have another meeting at one o'clock. So well, I guess you better get with it, keep your tie on and get going. Thanks a lot, guys. And we'll see you on the full senate meeting in the morning. And then we'll switch to ag at ten thirty or quarter after ten. OK, yeah. Thank you, Linda, Michael.