 Good afternoon. I want to start today by addressing some concerning incidents that we've seen over the past few months at youth sporting events. From spectators in the stands using racial slurs at players, the tragic violence in Albert recently. Now, I understand the passion surrounding sports, but it's clear we have a problem and we should not tolerate the hate. It's not just that these events or sporting events in general are unique to Vermont. I believe it's a symptom of a much deeper problem with as far too much anger and a lack of respect in our society. We're constantly being divided into camps, whether it's politics, religion, race, or social issues where everything is turned into us versus them. Too many want to stoke fear, raise the temperature which can sometimes lead to violence. We see politicians convince their supporters that the other side is the enemy. And some in the national media choose to ramp up conflicts, to get more views, sell more papers, or increase their ratings. And when both politicians and media are successful with those strategies, they end up pitting neighbors against neighbors. Unfortunately over the past several years, we're seeing more and more of that build up and boil over. And it leads to big problems, like storming the capital, but also on a smaller scale, like what happened in Albert. None of us should find this acceptable. And all of us have an obligation to go down the rhetoric, recognize the humanity in everyone, including those we disagree with, and just be better role models for our kids. The idea that a brawl would break out amongst adults in front of their kids at a middle school basketball game is just plain sad. Our kids watch us every single day. Many of them want to be just like us. What message are we sending? What are we teaching them about how to handle disagreements when this is what they see? I think we should all ask ourselves, what can we do in our everyday lives to help bring down the temperature a bit and be better human beings? Maybe it's something as simple as deciding not to wade into that keyboard feud on social media with someone you've never met or even take a break from Twitter or Facebook for a week or two. And maybe instead of flipping off the driver or cut you off, you let it go and reflect on the fact that you probably made a mistake or two behind the wheel as well over the last few months. We also have a responsibility in this building too, from public servants to lobbyists and those who report on it. Not every disagreement has to be a battle or a fight. I think almost everyone here just wants to make Vermont a better place. So let's use that as the starting point. Now, reasonable people can disagree on issues. In fact, it's healthy to do so. So it's really about how we have that conversation. But it doesn't mean that we're not trying to do what we think is best. And it certainly doesn't mean we don't care about the well-being of others. We just have different thoughts and approaches on how to get there. It all comes down to respect and civility and doing our part to calm things down when tensions are high and things get heated. At the end of the day, whether you're a parent, coworker, public servant or leader in any capacity, the things we say and do carry much more weight than we might think. So before acting, just remember, regardless of age, we're all role models for someone. And we all need to play our part. And it's never, never too late to be a better person. Lastly, turning to state business, I want to share our thoughts about the Budget Adjustment Act that passed the House as moving to the Senate. First of all, I'm grateful that there's a lot of agreement in it. But there are some areas we believe need further consideration, which Secretary Clouser will now cover. Thank you, Governor. Good afternoon. H 145, the Budget Adjustment Act or the BAA, includes dozens of adjustments to last year's budget, as well as time sensitive one time initiatives. The governor's recommended budget adjustment included approximately 57 million for one time initiatives like municipal assistance grants, broadband state matching funds, additional funding for the Vermont Housing Improvement Program and money to address the critical need for youth inpatient beds. Importantly, each of these recommendations were evaluated simultaneous to our work on the full FY 24 budget. That means we considered all other priorities when making these decisions. The House passed Budget Adjustment, which is the governor said will now be taken out by the Senate, includes all of the governor's recommended adjustments to last year's budget and the governor's one time initiatives. It also includes almost $90 million in additional spending on numerous House initiatives and investments. The administration greatly appreciates that the House included all of the governor's initiatives. And we look forward to working with the legislature to put these funds to immediate work upon passage. The administration also recognizes that several of the smaller investments added by the House should be considered by the Senate. However, despite significant agreement on both adjustments and one time initiatives, the administration is concerned about three sizable investments, which together exceed $80 million in new additional general fund spending. These investments may be good investments, but we don't believe budget adjustment is the best place for their consideration. Ultimately, they are policy decisions that require more time for legislative review and should be weighed with all other priorities in the FY 24 budget. So let's talk about them. First, the House provided $50 million to the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, VHCB. The administration supports the House's dedication to housing as a priority this season. However, the investment is better contemplated and prioritized alongside other proposed housing investments included in the governor's FY 24 budget. These investments include money to Vermont Housing Conservation Board, but also to the Vermont Housing Improvement Program, to middle income housing and others. If the legislature directs $50 million to VHCB and budget adjustment, it could come at the expense of other diverse and essential housing investments, which policy committees have not yet had time to consider. Second, the House provides $20.9 million to extend and expand the Pandemic Emergency Housing Program through June. As the federal funding for this pandemic program is winding down and the federal public health emergency is ending, this proposal uses state funds to expand eligibility back to pandemic levels of assistance and extends that expansion through June 30th. The House has proposed appropriation of $20.9 million for an additional three months threatens funding for more effective longer term solutions that work to solve the housing challenge and should be considered alongside all housing proposals and supports contained within the FY 24 budget. Third, and finally, the House invests $9.2 million in bridge funding for organic dairy farmers. The administration is acutely aware of the economic challenges facing Vermont's agricultural sector and is not opposed to providing support for organic dairy farmers. But the appropriate venue again for this conversation would be in the context of the FY 24 budget development, not budget adjustment. This funding was provided by the House with no input from the agency of agriculture, food and markets, or from other market participants other than the dairy organic dairy farmers. Further evidence that this is not right for inclusion in the budget adjustment is the language in the budget adjustment, which holds these funds in reserve pending additional study and action by the legislature. So there's no urgency here. Again, we appreciate the partnership on the governor's proposed initiatives and adjustments. However, for the three initiatives just discussed, this additional spending will come out of the FY 24 budget. And as a result, this is not something the administration can support without understanding what will be removed to accommodate these additional investments. Governor. Well, open up to questions. This is hardly the first fight or the first conflict that we've seen at a sporting event. How do we change the culture, whether that be on sporting teams or perspectives to Yeah, I mean conflicts amongst players has been historic when we've seen that throughout history. But this one was just a little bit different. This was amongst adults at a seventh and eighth grade basketball game. I think that tells a lot about the situation, the responsibility we have as spectators and response we have for our kids as well. I mean, sports are important in the development of kids and teams and so forth and teaching them things along the way. I this this just wasn't the way to teach them anything, except the wrong approach. And so I think we just have to reflect on all the anger we're seeing throughout the country. Again, it's not unique to Vermont. But but it seems to be systemic. It seems to be elevating from my perspective over the last number of years. And it's it's coming to a boiling point that we need to all take a responsibility to tamp down. The superintendent of the Maple Run Unified School District is calling on both the VPA and the AOE to provide more guidance and education for for circumstances like these. In your view, what what role does does the state play in in providing that? Yeah, I think I think they have a responsibility to the to the kids, first of all, the students, the athletes. But as well, making sure that the the forum is safe. So they've done that. But but again, this is I'm more concerned about the spectators than I am about the play. And that's where, you know, things seem to be getting out of hand. And it's very difficult to manage. But again, all of us have responsibility and can do our part to reduce that. In your opening comments, you also alluded to not necessarily this incident, but there's been incidents in the past that have been related to race. And there's been conflicts surrounding that. Does Vermont? How have we been dealing with with that? And does Vermont have a race problem? And if so, how do we address that? Again, I'm not sure that this, those incidents are unique to Vermont either. It feels as though this has been systemic across the country. But again, we can hold ourselves to a higher standard. And we've got to do so. And I think it comes down to education, it comes down to just basic respect and civility amongst people. And, and I think that we have, we're poised, we're in a good position to do that. But again, it comes down to us as individuals, not somebody telling us to do this comes down to what's best for society, what's best for our kids? And what are we teaching them? It's becoming increasingly evident that there's a fundamental difference of opinion between you and Democratic leaders in this building over whether it makes sense in this moment to raise taxes to fund new government programs. And, you know, as you have, you know, become aware of that yourself, as I'm sure you've been watching what they're doing, I'm wondering how that informs your approach to policy development and or general deliberations with, with lawmakers? Again, I think it comes down to the fundamentals and basics. And it's financial basics from my perspective. I mean, I, I think we've talked a lot about the possibility of a recession. I think there is going to be some sort of recession in the future. Hopefully it looks like it may be a soft landing, which would be great. But, but at the same time, we have to prepare ourselves for that. We're, we're already a very high tax state, very costly to live in Vermont. We need more people here. And we can't, we can't add to the affordability issue that we face. So again, what we do now will have a far reaching effect on us in the future. And for those of us who have been through some downturns over the last two or three decades, I think we should listen and because it's coming. And it's going to affect us. And we're going to have to make some very, very difficult choices in the future. If we don't do this right now. Presumably, you think there are times when it's appropriate to raise taxes to fund something that is in the public good. What's the, what's the thought process that you go through when determining whether the state is going to be better off for having collected this new tax than it would be at that money stayed with residents. I think there's a better approach. Again, we have common goals with a lot of the initiatives. It's just how we get there. And for instance, the pay family leave. I think the approach we're taking with a volunteer program sets up the structure, the build the foundation for something that we could utilize in the future. And in the future, having so that we don't as a state government have to build up another bureaucratic bureaucracy to oversee it. It's going to be the private sector that's able to develop that are already develop it and utilize it. So if we move forward with that in the future in two or three years when we have maybe hopefully with some organic growth in our economy, we'll be able to pay for it with existing funds without having we we proven time and time again that if we focus on the economy, grow the economy and and we'll bring in more revenue organically, which we have done consistently over the last six years. So raising a tax might stifle that economic growth and and put us further behind in the long run. This will be my last question. I got to rephrase it under what circumstances do you think it is appropriate for government to raise taxes on people? The problem is in Vermont, we've already done all that. We've already raised all the taxes over the years and that is stifled our growth. It's stifled. I think economic opportunity. I think it's it's led to many people not being able to stay or attract as many people as we need. So again, I don't think we should be raising taxes. I think we should be growing the economy to grow that tax revenue organically rather than rather than with another tax. Governor, do you ever feel obviously you are the governor, but do you ever feel like you have to you are you have to put a governor in the in the mechanical sense? You're a race car driver. So you know the idea something on the motor that will keep it from going to too fast. You ever feel like that when you're dealing with the legislature? Well, I think there is a there is a responsibility to make sure that we're not over revving. And when that happens, we don't protect the economic growth of the state and have far reaching consequences. If we do do way too much or raise too many taxes or do anything to make it more unaffordable here in Vermont. So yeah, I think I have a responsibility to make sure that that we can get through this, that we can we can have measured growth and and all get to a better place in the future. I don't know the precise number. I know it's out there, but state with divided government like you or Republican in the government's office with a thoroughly democratic legislature. Does this make your life more difficult, more challenging? I don't know any better, to be honest with you. I mean, I've served in the minority my entire political life. So I've never served in the majority. So I don't really know what that's like. But I was interesting. I was on the phone with Governor Lamont in Connecticut. And I saw one of his sweets yesterday where he's cutting corporate taxes and helping out middle class. And I'm thinking what what's happening here? I mean, here you have a Democrat in another state New England state, and he's cutting taxes. And and we're trying to we're trying to help with the ITC and help reduce the tax on those living on fixed incomes with social security and so forth, and and help the lower benefit folks. And we weren't that successful in doing so last year. And we're trying it again this year. But there is a little bit of role reversal here in different states. Back to the school fight. I mean, I just want to make it clear. So you think the same degradation of society or however you want to describe it, that allows something like that to happen in Alberg and is the same thing at the other end of the spectrum that led to the January 6th, I think there's a lot of anger throughout society throughout the country that we're seeing boil over in many, many different places. Again, this isn't unique to Vermont, but I but I do think that what we saw there was just so again, so sad, so unusual and and unnecessary. There's no justification. Albert, Albert, we better say Albert, by the way, yes. Yes. But it's there's no justification for what happened. I don't care what the situation was. There's no justification for brawl breaking out amongst adults in front of their seventh and eighth grade kids who are playing basketball, none. Sure. I may be getting way ahead of myself here, but if the BIA passes as it currently stands, do you have to be done? I think you're getting way ahead of yourself. I don't think in all my years here, I don't think I think there are some some questions in the Senate on this issue. So we'll see what happens. But I think we'll come to agreement. How do you in the dynamics of the legislature that we have right now with the super majority that the Democrats do have? I mean, do you feel that you are being listened to, frankly, when they have theoretically both override veto? I think they to be honest with you, I think they did listen. They included all the initiatives we asked them to. These went a little further than we'd hoped. And they did that very quickly. And it may be for for good reason. But now it's for the for the Senate to to flush that out. Maybe take some more testimony. We'd like we just like for the housing. For instance, I don't think any of us are disagreeing on the investment in housing. We all want that. We've been talking about that for six years. So it's just we need to have the conversation in its entirety. We have a lot of other pieces to this puzzle that are in the big bill. And we just want to make sure that we we've, you know, consider everything rather than just one small smaller piece of that. The piece about the dairy, is your concern about giving money to organic dairies related to the fact that that's only one segment of the dairy industry and that you feel like that's inappropriate to give one piece of that industry incentives or assistance instead of a broader again, I don't know. It's not the it's not the nine million to the organic dairy sector. It's really about what are the ramifications of that in terms of the big big bill. We've included $13 million for agriculture in that sector. Is it coming out of the 13 million? Where's the money coming from? And again, we should look at the entire agriculture sector when we have make those decisions. So again, I'm concerned as much about where does the money come from? On Jerry, I think there's also a push to find a way to maybe increase dairy prices for permount producers. Have you looked at that yet? I have not seen that. I do know the price of eggs has increased quite a bit. Governor, the Vice Chair of the House Committee on Energy and Technology, which oversees the Vermont Community Broadband Board also sits on the BCVB as a representative of the communication union districts. State law explicitly prohibits an active legislator from sitting as a legislative representative on that board. While the law doesn't explicitly forbid the CUD representative from being a lawmaker and representative Sebelia is extremely knowledgeable, does raise questions of separation of powers and a possible conflict of interest. Do you share any of these concerns? It's the first I've heard of this, but we have House and legislative ethics policies. And and I'm sure that they will react accordingly if they think there's a conflict of any sort. I believe that the House leadership will will take that into account. I also have a great deal of faith and representative Sebelia to do the right thing. So I don't have any question about her capabilities or her sitting on in the in the House in the legislative way. We have a number of folks in the legislature that have in a worse small state have some conflicts. And I know in the Senate, we had we have a mechanism to to ask leave of the Senate if you have any type of conflict so that it's visible. And then the legislature or the Senate votes on that. So I'm not sure about the House rules, but but I think it will be dealt with appropriately. Do you think the pandemic, the lockdowns and the remote schooling, I know the educators are saying that this children are having a real mental health crisis in part due to that. Is that connected to this sort of maybe what happened in Elberg and the general mood of anger? I I don't really have the answer to that. But I do know there are a number of mental health issues amongst men throughout throughout every sector. And so I don't know if we can point right to that. But again, I don't believe the kids were the ones who started this one. This was adults and adults should be able to to handle that. Quick question about the program again. That's now getting some closer scrutiny in the House committees. Essentially lawmakers are looking to pause the veggie program whenever unemployment drops below five percent, maybe four percent depending on how the legislation goes. What's your sense of whether that program is unnecessary or should be put on the pause while unemployment is still going? Yeah, I'm not I'm not in agreement that it should be paused. I do believe that there are improvements that could be made in the program itself, maybe more transparency, maybe even taking a look and making sure that we're investing in the right areas of the state, more the rural areas of the state that could use some economic help. So there are some ideas like that. But but I think if you tie it, I don't I don't think the unemployment rate is a good metric to use because it doesn't tell the whole story. And particularly in Vermont, where it might be what's happening in, let's say Chittenden County or the northwest part of the state is far different than what's happening in Wyndham. And Wyndham could use a little bit of help right now. The Northeast Kingdom could use some help Bennington could use some help. So you know, I think if you tie it to something like that, you might will just cancel the program. And if you put it on pause for too long, then you're too late to the game. Because if you have a major employer, let's say, that decides to leave the state, let's say there was an IBM, you know, previous to them actually leaving. But if they decide to just pull up stakes and move their operation to fish skill, and and then just leave the state and leave three or 4000 employee employees, it'd be too late at that point, we it would take two or three years to recover from a veggie perspective, it's always kind of forward thinking, making sure that we diversify and spread, spread out in the economy, and especially again, in those rural parts of the state, they could use some help. Don't think we have anyone on the phone today. All right. Well, thank you very much.