 Thank you. Committee and our, our watching public. We have moved on. Our, our topic to H seven 11, which is an act relating to the creation of the opioid settlement advisory committee and the opioid abatement special fund. And this is really on some level, probably a short. Discussion. It is my understanding. That. The attorney general's office and you had some. Suggested changes. In the bill, which is fine. And that, that would, that you talk to a legislative council about. And so I was hoping that you could. Talk about what it is the changes were so that we're not surprised when we see the language. Which we're not going to see yet. We're just trying to understand. I thought that's directed to me. I apologize. Yeah. No, I'm sorry. Yes. No, yes. Yes. No. I think that means maybe I'm not sure. It's directed at you because you. Unfortunately. The attorney general's office was not able to, to come. And so we have questions and we are fast. Approaching our town meeting recess. And so I wanted to try to understand what the, what the suggested. Changes in terms of. What needed to be modified. Based and, and, and why. Got it. Thank you. So for the record, Monica Haddon, the chief prevention officer for the state of Vermont. If, if it makes sense to the committee, I think what I would like to do is just articulate a few of the things that. Katie and Josh Diamond and I continue to sort of. Try to clarify. And then maybe Katie, if you could fill in with the actual, because I feel like a lot of this was. In response to the attorney general trying to clarify for us how this was going to work. And we kept trying to translate it into the legislation itself. Okay. Good. Thank you. Perfect. So I think that the bill is actually in pretty good shape. In terms of, of where it sits right now, there was, there were, there was a little bit of clarification that needed to happen in a couple of the areas. And this is where maybe Katie can get a little bit more specific. We needed to better understand. If you will recall those three different buckets. Of funding that are flowing in because of this litigation. And to be a little bit more clear. About which buckets. Connected to the need to create an advisory council. Because not all three do one, as you will recall is directly to municipalities. And that one doesn't connect to the advisory council. And actually the state fund. So it was 15% for municipal. And then 70% of the settlement goes into that abatement fund. The abatement fund connects to the advisory council. The other two do not. And so we've been trying to just make sure that the language reflects that. Because it will all be the legislation will. Need to be a little bit more specific to that. I think that's where we keep tweaking it. So I apologize if that feels frustratingly nitpicky, but we are trying very hard to do a good job with this bill. So that's the one area. And Katie might be able to articulate a little bit more about how we cleaned that up. We don't need to know the exact language right now. Okay. Okay. That's, so that's just a really global. The other piece that we were trying to clarify was how the actual process works in terms of utilizing the department of health. As the single person. As the single person. As the single person. As the single person. As the single person. As the single person. As the single person. As the single person. In terms of utilizing the department of health. As the single state entity and how it will, it will flow from the national settlement fund administrator, who is a, you know, a person that will be hired. Through the settlement to administer these dollars to this, to all of the states that are involved. So how that flow works. That's what we're trying to figure out. And I think one area that I know Katie wanted me to articulate to you out loud, because it was coming clear to us as we were working through this. Is that the timing is a little bit. Delayed. Because we are putting into place the use of the budget cycle. And then we're going to be able to, you know, submit that plan to the administrator. Get tentative approval on that plan and then build that plan and the associated dollars into the budget, which then walks through the department, the governor, and then the general assembly. What we realized. In April, we will probably not be able to walk through that whole process until I get confused about my fiscal years, fiscal year 24. Unless we were to use budget adjustment. Katie, does that sound right? Because I think that that was the light bulb that went on for the both of us. And we thought, oh, we need to say this out loud to make sure the committee understands that. I think it's important that everybody has the opportunity to weigh in. I just wanted to make sure that I articulated that because as we realized it. It took us a back a little bit. I don't think it's bad to move a little bit more slowly. The money won't go away. We'll simply be there. And it will be spent far more intentionally with a little bit of time, but I did want to make sure that the committee was aware of that. Do we know for sure that money will come in April? No. The wonderful thing about this piece of legislation and the settlement is that we don't know very much for sure, because it's still not entirely finalized. But my best guess would be that we will see. Funding to the state anywhere between April and June. And this is where the attorney general's office has a much stronger finger on the pulse of all of that information. And they are in kind of constant communication as they look to finalize the settlement. But that is my best guess. It would make sense. And I don't know if it needs different language. That the, I mean. The budget adjustment process. If it comes early and. The other thing, I guess, and I sort of, I looked to, to the other, maybe the thing to, to, to. To think about. Is. We passed this legislation. The governor signs the legislation. It is. In. In July. Unless you can get the Senate to work. Very fast and passing it earlier. And the governor signs it earlier or whatever. But I guess. There is a. From time to time, I have seen, you know, us. Put things in, you know, spend it before we have it. I'm not suggesting we do that. I mean, I guess I'm trying to understand. And maybe that is. Something for us to. Noodle on. Or understand better. With the ARPA funds. We, we wrote a whole bill around how to spend the ARPA funds. And we had, and, and they had to get approved. By ARPA central. Before we could, you know, I mean, they, you know, they had to be, you know, They had to be approved. Whatever. I think part of the point, though, on committee that. Miss hottest making is that. We would not be able to, you know, the earliest, we'd be able to maybe, you know, spend it would be in terms of the budget adjustment. So we would, we wouldn't be able to, if the money came in April, May or June. We. The state might not be able to fund it yet. Yeah. One of the things this is actually sort of referencing your first part of your comment. I know that. We did this with. Some previous. CRF monies. Corona virus relief monies. We. We appropriated general fund and then back filled it with CRF funds where we received those CRF funds. It's sort of relating to what you're saying. It's like, you know, You could appropriate funds for these purposes. And then when we received the, out of the general fund, and then when we received the money. They can be repaid by. Unless that would be considered supplanting or something like that. And I think the. That's right. And the thing that would. That would be that's different is that we have said that there needs to be an advisory group that provides recommendations. And that. Does not exist yet. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Timing is an issue. Timing is an issue. But maybe not a bad issue. I think it necessarily is a bad issue. Madam chair. I feel like it took me a while to wrap my head around it, but I feel like this is the process. Most comfortable to all of us and gave, you know, the advisory council time to form and to, and to actually do some thinking and some advising. Allows the department to, to put together a plan, you know, utilizes the settlement administrator, which we have to do. Let's the governor look at it. And then comes to you as a recommend for discussion. It's a good idea. Let's the governor look at it and then comes to you as a recommend for discussion. It's a little slower that we might have hoped, but I don't necessarily think that that means it's not good. I feel like it's a very good. Thoughtful intentional. Use of those dollars and the dollars will be around in some way, shape or form for the next 18 years. So I would much rather have a process that feels. Inclusive and connected and gives us the opportunity to think about it. I think it's a good idea to think about it carefully versus. Speeding it through. So. For myself personally, I'm comfortable with, I think that the administration is comfortable with this. If you are comfortable, I don't, I don't think it's a problem that we need to fix necessarily. I just wanted to make sure that, that you. Burn it because as I, as I said, for Katie and I, it was, it was a little bit of a revelation as we backed into it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam chair. Yeah, I think. Hearing. The chief prevention officer. Talk about sort of the potential times. Whether you have, I don't know if anyone and committee has. An immediate. Thought. That they want to, or, you know, or concern about continuing on the path that we have started. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. I, I just wanted to make sure that we have the, the potential timeline. Where possibly these funds wouldn't be dedicated until fiscal year. 24. Does seem like a way's out. And I think it would just if that's the, if that is the absolute case that we're working with. I'll just want to make sure that. The council that we're putting together, you know, I think that's the spirit of this process. And so I think. I was taking a close look at who sits on that. Council is probably a good idea so that we can make the most out of. What. Is sort of a limited, limited resource year by year. That we will be receiving through this settlement. So where can we really get the most benefit. From those dollars. When you think 18 years. That you want this to be an excellent, strong. Process that's backing it up so that you don't have to go in and amend. Or, you know, that's a long time. I don't. But you know better what was tobacco when it started. Long time ago. Okay. Thank you. And where there are other areas. Any other substantive areas we've been trying to clean up the language. And again, what this all will be somewhat dependent on how the settlement fund administrator decides to function. So there may be some twists and turns that we didn't anticipate, but I think. As to the rest of it, and I'm looking at Katie for confirmation, but I think that we just trying to use consistent language all the way through and naming things the way that they needed to be named. Yeah, else that you can imagine that you can remember that we were. I think a big part of it was using the right terminology for the national settlement. And the national administrator who we have to, you know, ask to approve the plan. And then really understanding which bucket of money this chap sub chapter is talking about. And being very clear about how the money will flow and that it requires a request from the health department that has to be approved a preliminary plan approval before that the money can leave. That national settlement account. So really reflecting what the settlement requires in terms of how the money will flow. That's helpful. Thank you. We are only stop one. When, when we introduced this bill. It was the first. Until I intervened and it got sent back to committee. It was going to go to appropriations. So it may go to appropriations. But in any case, it will go to the Senate. So as, as, as you and attorney general diamond, learn more things. I think that, you know, there, there will be opportunity to make it more reflective of what it needs to. To do. You know, in terms of that. We have had some of us have gotten emails and Monica, if you can't answer this right now, maybe. You could inquire of Josh of the, Josh, the attorney general, Jeff, just diamond and get responses back. To, to the committee. The list of, I know the settlement talked about this is the. The limitation. That is a limitation and maybe not a limitation, but in terms of where things go, the bucket of choices. If I want to say. Can we add to that. I know that we talked about that as a committee, the last time that Josh and I were both. Meeting with you and, and. You know, I, you know, I think that my sense of the response to that is that the buckets, if you look at the legislation are, are quite broad. So I, I feel like there's not. I would be hard pressed to imagine very much that is directed to substance use disorder that wouldn't fall into some of those buckets. I mean, so, so I guess, I mean, the question is sort of more specific. I mean, your interpretation, which might be my interpretation, is that the buckets and the descriptors are quite broad. And. Organization X that comes in and does us. It would fit under one of those buckets, but it's very specific. And I think that that should be have their type of service. Be very specifically mentioned. Is that a choice we have. To choose or not choose to call out certain. Types of organizations or, or not. So that's what part of. I'm not saying we will do it, but I don't want to give an answer saying we can't do it. If it's more, no, we've chosen not to, or we've chosen to. Yes. Ms. McClendon. Thank you. So this issue. We discussed this specifically with Josh at our meeting because I was curious too, when, when this language was drafted, I stuck very closely to what was in the settlement in terms of the language and I asked him how flexible we should feel and committee to, to amend that language or, you know, put our own kind of Vermont approach on that language. And I felt that he was discouraging that and that he was. Encouraging kind of sticking with that language, unless there was something that was really unclear or worded really poorly to really try to stick with that. But then I think the flip side is he felt that well, we should probably stick with the language that was in the settlement that it could probably be interpreted fairly broadly. So, you know, when you're looking at that subsection be in the special fund language, the language is very broad. I think it's meant to be interpreted broadly, but in terms of going in and maybe naming a specific or a specific type of service. For instance, he would be a little wary of that. Right. Okay. Because I mean, for instance, I think there's something broadly about education. And this committee loves childcare and early childcare. Early care and education. So, you know, part of me would like to know what would be the harm. The harm of saying education and then the next line being preschool or the next line being childcare centers. And I'm not. I'm not proposing this, but these are the types of questions that we, and I'm trying not to use the examples of the questions we've been, I've been given. I'm trying to find out. I want to give an honest answer. If there's, you know, and then when things come, we can discuss it, but I don't want to off the top of my head go, no, we have to stick with that. So I would agree with that. I mean, one of the things that Kelly's not here. And I think we've talked about it. When we first brought it up was there's been a, a request to add after school programs. And I think we talked about that, but I, my memory is we talked about that. And the response was, well, the interpretation that would fit under education. So it's, I don't know. I'm just, you know, is there, is there a, probably not. This is lawmaking. Is there a clear response, or is this a decision that we get to make? Katie that, that the encouragement from the attorney general was to stick with the language of the settlement. Recognizing that how we can be flexible in what we propose. And we need to get that approved. The role of the settlement administrator is to check that anything that we suggest falls in their opinion. Within the scope of the settlement agreement. So we, if we started adding. Things that were. Two different than the language in the settlement, we might be setting up a conflict between our own Vermont law and what the settlement administrator will ultimately approve. And then that would become, I would, I would imagine that that would be, would be pretty awkward and kind of hard to negotiate. So I think that Josh, the attorney general's office recommended that we stick with the language of the settlement in Vermont law. Recognizing that the flexibility is in our interpretation. And then in what the administrator will in fact allow. And there is language. I mean, I'm just thinking of the after school example. But in the subsection B, there's a whole list of. You know, different things that are acceptable expenses. And one of them is implementing. Other evidence based or evidence informed programs or strategies to support. Prevention harm reduction treatment. Or recovery. So that seems. Fairly broad that if there is, you know, an evidence based or evidence informed after school program. Aimed at prevention or harm reduction that, you know, that would probably be an acceptable use of those types of funds. Thank you. Committee. My, my hope is that when we come back from town meeting. Recess. That if there's, you know, an evidence based or evidence informed after school program aimed at prevention or harm reduction. That, you know, that would probably be. An acceptable use of those types of funds. And so that would be a good idea. And so that would be a good idea. And so that would be a good idea. But if. That Wednesday morning, we could both this out. You know, the Tuesday, we could. See, you know, we could. Get the newer. Get the amendments. And. So that would be. And to move it along. To its next stop. So my question is. Who, who, who do you want to, who else do you want to hear from? Or what end? What additional information will you. Will you need in order to feel like you're ready to do that? Thank you. Madam chair. I think some of the questions coming up for me. Are related to who sits on the advisory board. While understanding that we don't want to expand out and out. I mean, that struck me was that they include like. Somebody who provides either treatment or recovery services. And that seems like a pretty broad. You know, a diverse feel. So if we were to call that out, and then I think just, yeah, the, the various. We have. The commissioner of health, which is straightforward. But you know, we also have the commissioner of mental health. We have the commissioner of health. We have the commissioner of health. We have the commissioner of health. On there. We've heard from Monica chief prevention officer. And I think. Maybe hearing from. Just a few more of the people that we expect to have. Sit on the board and have a major presence as far as what they, what they see their role as. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. As you said that it made it reminded me that we did hear from the commissioner of health. And I think that in terms of the local. Appointees. They don't want to, it's not, they don't feel it's their role to appoint the assistant judge. That there is. Some kind of assistant judge. Association. And so that. To. Change that. So to change that. You know, I remember there has to be equal numbers of. Local. To. To the other and. Not to discourage you because I'm not. But something we have to think about is if we, if we do. And there may be. Real value in splitting. That'd be two people. Treatment is very different than prevention. So. We'll need to up the number. Of local. Or take away one of the ones that. Or take away, or take away someone helps. So is the bill that is on our web page. On our. Yeah. Is that the most updated version? That is the most. That is the bill that the bill that is on our. The most updated version of the committee page. Is the bill as introduced. It is the most up to date version. In conversations, you know, outside of committee. As people are noodling how to make this better. Some or more responsive. These questions came up. Hence. I asked. The chief prevention officer to come and sort of. And if one of them. Seemed really odd. I was looking to. Or it didn't make sense or people like questions. I was sort of looking for committee members to sort of say that. I have not heard that. So, you know, Katie would have some direction to. Try to move forward with that. And I was just wondering if we are changing it at all, then I want to make sure that over break. I have that it's, I go to the website and update myself before we walk in. Well, I mean, I think. Yeah. I think that. That's why I sort of put it to Wednesday because. In terms of these. Amendments. And do we want to do it? Oh. Do we want to have a clean? I mean, they're all. Ultimately, is it easier to have a cleaned up rather than an amended version? I think Katie, that's what we're going to want would be a strike call. Even though the changes aren't that much. And I do appreciate. I want to. Say again. I want to make sure that we're not calling out that one section. Of who was on the committee. And we can try to have. Some folks come in. Yeah. Might I suggest folks from the comm stat team in Burlington, just because it is a collaborative effort of local law enforcement, government officials, medical professionals, seeing what, what's working with that and addressing the opioid crisis. I know it's Burlington and Chenning County. So there's another one in the state. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. But just seeing, do they have everyone that they feel like they need at the table? And that might help us to see who should be part of this group. If you, if you would give the contact information to Julie. Or are you already have. I have not. I'm just. Okay. I'm not going to put the car in front of the horse man chair. Who else might we want to. Hear from. I would think maybe the. Vermont association of mental health and recovery. Okay. Some of the designated agencies. Okay. The head of the designated. The. Probably. Care partners. How about, is that what that, you know, the, the umbrella. Vermont care partners is the. Yeah. Yeah. And if, if some of them don't want to come in, but want to send a letter that would be fine. I think as well. What about the education component and what Kelly was concerned about the after could speak to them. After school. I guess one of the things that I'm wondering. Yes. Yeah. It seems like there's a sort of. Fairly defined. Activities. Fairly defined eligible. Areas for spending. This money. Yeah. And. Not that I don't want to hear from all of these people, but I do want to hear from all of these people. I think it's important. I think it's important that they will come and say, oh, but could we do this? Or could we do that? Can we, can we change this? And. I think it's. Sorry. But maybe important that they're testifying on. Who sits on the panel. Not necessarily. Recommendations for how the money. Okay. Then we should be specific when we asked them to testify. I don't know if they're going to testify with regard to section. Whatever the section number is. I know I'm finding it now. I have it open here. With regard to. Like, I mean, we should. Presume here. The commissioner say that they're okay with being the lead agency, which I'm presuming that. Our chief prevention officer already knows that, but. But a letter from the commissioner might be helpful. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Monica. Miss. I asked for that to be submitted, madam chair. Yes, please. In fact, unless people really want to hear from the commissioner of mental health. Something similar from her would be fine. Yeah. Absolutely. Okay. A group that we don't often hear around opioids is older. I just got some statistics from my interns and doing some research based on. And between 2012 and 2019, there was a 600% increase in individuals over the age of 65 receiving. So we may want to hear baby boomers getting older. Yeah. I'm wondering if you have any questions. I do have a question from the department of health. They have a person whose job is to. Basically work with older Vermonters around. Substance use. Are you wondering if we should. Just. Are you wondering if the focus on, if there needs to be a. Some of the advisory council someone on the advisory council should have a focus on older reminders. At least we should talk about it, or at least someone should be thinking about that is where discussing what this advisory council will be addressing just as long as it's part of the discussion doesn't necessarily have to be someone directly targeted, you know, to that but someone should be thinking about that. So I wonder if the former commissioner of Dale has any happens to be right here. Any thoughts about that. Maybe no surprise to anybody to hear that I am very appreciative of representative noise raising that. I do think it's a huge issue. We did just I'm happy to say a point Charles Gurney who is the gentleman who actually has a position at BDH and Dale it's, it's a shared position to focus on substance use and older reminders to the substance misuse prevention advisory council so now he's a sitting member of that group which I'm very excited about. Yeah, so that so that group will appoint somebody. I think that the challenge with the advisory council is really how, how big do you want it to be, because I think that there are lots of voices that can and should be represented and so, you know, one of the challenges I know we've used internally in state government is to design a committee and then maybe articulate who we want them to reach out to as part of their deliberative process, because it can be, it can be huge. I don't know if that's a strategy or a way of threading the needle a little bit. It worries me just because every time you add somebody as, as chairwoman noted you're at your, you're adding to people every person that you add adds to people, because you need to maintain that balance. Yeah, necessarily think you need to add another person just as long as that comes into the discussion and doesn't fall through the cracks. That's my concern. There is no education. Yes. It just what what Ms. White on this hot was just speaking to. I'm just wondering if that should be a one of the duties of this advisory committee is to coordinate with the group that you just spoke of this got the big long name. No dealing with similar issues and it. I know that this one is required and there's a certain, you know, way it has to be configured in order to meet the requirements of the settlement. So I understand the need to have to, but it really feels like they should definitely should be explicit about them working together. Okay. And I'm going to look to I think that's a good idea. I'm going to look to and have you coordinate with Josh diamond in the next week. There's a section on the advisory council that says powers and duties. And it says, you know, shall receive testimony and advice on the on the following for the purpose of providing recommendations. And to think if there is a way of perhaps shoring that up a bit more without getting so specific that somebody and some group is going to say but what about us. Yeah. For instance, maybe are you referring to number three at the top of page five that references marginalized populations. And that or you were thinking that sir, I'm not thinking that broadly, I was thinking that broadly because I mean I want to say, my guess is that marginalized populations probably have more to do with people in poverty and people who are not white. My point exactly. Right. I mean, there's that. I mean, all the Vermonters are marginalized population as well but it's not wouldn't necessarily come to people's minds right on the right terminology. Exactly. Exactly. So I mean I was not. Oh, represent McFawn. Thank you. In relation to who else should we be talking to while listening to on on page 11. It talks now about treating incarcerated populations specifically and monies from this fund to be used for that. I'm wondering why that would be in there and not in the monies that come to the state. I don't think the state would use their money to deal with people in the corrections population are the incarcerated population. I believe that that language came directly out of the settlement and again I'm looking at Katie to make sure that I'm right. I have to go back and double check I'm not certain. Um, if it's in the special yes the specialty incarcerated persons is in the special funds that came from exhibit. So yes that did come right from the language. Um, I might ask represent McFawn's question a different way. If the settlement says these and only these are areas where you can spend, you potentially can spend the money. And we as a state. Cross something out. We're not putting it in our legislation. Not that we would would do that. But that's the, on some level the import of representative McFawn's question. I think that this would be a great question for Josh. My sense is that again we are signing the settlement agreement and this is what the settlement agreement reads. So I think by signing it as a state. Aren't we agreeing to it. Can we not agree to something that we are agree. Maybe this is for Katie. Can we not agree to something that we're, can we not in law in legislation agree to something that we've already agreed to as a state in signing the settlement agreement. I think a big part of it is what happens in practice. And I think that's the issue you raised. If we're telling the advisory committee you can use the funds for these reasons and they're developing a plan based on what's in legislation. Then they go to submit the plan and the plan administrator is not looking at our legislation that is irrelevant to the plan administrator they're looking at what was in the settlement and if the two don't match. Then we're Vermont still isn't drawing that money even if our legislation says that's an acceptable fund. I guess what I'm saying is just because we say it so I think in practice when the advisory committee puts in its plan Health Department is just to give that to the administrator and seek approval we might not get approval for that purpose unless it sort of falls under one of the general categories that are covered by the settlement. So, let me take it in a different way. The settlement agreement is broader than what is in state law. What we send is going to, in theory, meet the criteria because the things are in there, but there's some aspects of where the settlement agreement says you can spend money. And we don't want to. Can we can can can a state narrow. And so, Miss hot that would be another question for Josh diamond who will be very sorry that he was. Can you can tell him that he can he can he too can watch this. It started at 145. Kind of. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, I'm kind of putting together two and two and I might be getting five or three I'm not sure yet. So if it's in statute as an allowable an allowable place to spend these resources. These are all allowable under the settlement agreement, which they are. It doesn't require, I guess, my question is, it's not requiring us to spend it in all of these areas. We, for instance, could say, Oh, Vermont already provides MIT to people in correctional facilities so we don't need to do that with these funds we can instead prioritize, you know, pregnant moms or something. We don't need to spend it in all of these areas. We don't need to spend it in all of these areas. We don't need to spend it in all of these existing nods from this hot. So these are allowable, but it doesn't mean that we must do it in these areas. And I don't know if there's something in legislation. I mean, in the settlement agreement. Or whether there would be. Whether everyone would agree with this. Funding. Stress. Yeah. I think we want to correct it. You're saying what language into not allow to be used to to to think to. I mean, just using Teresa's example. We were able to substitute money from the settlement agreement because it was a given use. We could take the money we had allocated. Somewhere else. Yeah. All right. That's what I'm saying. Oh, and you would like that. I wouldn't want to restrict. I was just trying to ask the question, which I think I got the answer that I understand. So the committee, the advisory group will be able to review the expenditures in any of these areas. And they should also consider what's already being spent in some of these areas when they are allocating or recommending resources to the commissioner or expenditure of these funds. Right. And I may, and they may find out that some of what we're doing is being supported by five year federal grants that are going to disappear. Right. And that we've had them for the last 20 years, but we're not going to now. Right. We're saying it's fine. Excuse me. The reason I bring it up is you were asking who do we need to hear from anybody else in the way this piece of legislation now is drafted. It says that treating and the incarcerated population. And it's very specific. It under a and B it's telling you this is what you're going to do. And so if we if it was going to stay that way, and we're going to use this fund money to do that instead of the state money that I would think we would have to have somebody from the corrections department to come in and and we should talk to them. Because it's very prescriptive here. Right. It's one of the very specific. Possibilities. It represented my phone. I'm looking at these as a buffet table. And there's a lot of choices out there. And, but I really don't like me. So I'm only going to take all the vegetarian options. All the options are out there, but I don't have to take them all. That's, but as I started to try to explain it in a different way. I noticed that legislative council look like she was going to say something. So do correct me. No, I don't want to correct you. I just thought that it might be useful if I talk a little bit about how subsection B and C fit together. So they're, they're both sort of, well, let me start with me. So B is saying, this is sort of the allowable expenses. This is what you can spend the money on. But then subsection C, which is the really detailed subsection goes into priorities and those priorities are very specific. And even if something isn't on the priority list, but you're still seeing that it fits within one, you know, the universe of subsection B of allowable expenses. And that is still something that the advisory committee could recommend to draw down funds for. Does that help. Does that help topper makes what you said makes sense to me. My whole thing, who do we want to talk to. If, if the bill is going to go through this way. And I think we need to talk to the corrections people as a piece of legislation is a bit different than the advisory council making recommendations. Thank you topper represent McFawn. This this this. As we're going with these questions and it leads me to revise a bit that we will be spending time on this and on to on the Tuesday that we get back. And so I'm sort of people have their schedules out. If the chief prevention officer could have her schedule out, and we will. And we will invite Josh diamond and if Miss Hut could could reinforce the importance of him and if not him someone else from the office who can talk about answer our questions if we have them when we have them. And we'll have I think we will have been away for a while we'll have a walkthrough of the bill of the of the strike all amendment. And we will hear from some of the folks we need to hear from or review their letters. And we will continue the discussion on Wednesday. Hopefully vote and vote it out Wednesday morning. But so rather not try to do it on on Tuesday. Yeah. Did we say that we wanted to hear from someone on the substance misuse prevention oversight and advisory council, or, or hasn't that not been. No, I think that's that's we will need to hear from the. Save the title. I was impressed. You said the long. Specifically say we wanted to hear from them but it seems like we ought to. So thank you I think we are at a place where I will circle back. I think this is a good place for us to stop on this today. And thank you both very much. Thank you. Thank you.