 It's good to see you health members, never get to have lunch with any of you or see you too often except for on Zoom, but we're all in I guess the same shape, but it's good to see you and start working together toward the tail end I hope of our session. We've got your, well I guess before I go too far, I want to welcome Anson and Steve and Allison to our joint meeting and we've started working on your miscellaneous bag bill so I expect that to move forward in the near future. But anyhow, getting back to the orders of today, we'd like to invite Anson and his crew to fill us in on the economic development plan that the administration has put forward and to see how that may fit into everything. It's going to be in a separate bill and I know, but I don't know, I haven't seen a copy of the bill yet and so Anson, if you want to take it away, we'll get started. Thank you, senators and thank you representatives for the opportunity to testify today with me to mention your voice isn't coming through very well. Maybe he should turn off his video. Steve Collier with the agency of agriculture also Allison Easton. Linda, would you again? I'm going to turn off my audio video. Is this better? Yes. Is this better? Yes. Yes. Hello. Anson. Don't hear you at all now, Anson. Okay, good reason for better broadband and internet in the state of Vermont. We're going to send them outside. Yes. Are you there? It's still not great. No, I'm going to try. Okay. Okay. They said the host had muted me so they're not great. Let me see if I can move around a little bit. Okay, that's better. Here we go. All right. I'm just going to just keep on audio. So thanks for the opportunity to testify. Also on the line is Deputy Eastman and Steve Collier with the agency of ag. I just want to go over some high-level material for you and Steve also has a copy of the proposed legislation as it relates to the stimulus payments for dairy farmers and dairy processors. So he's standing ready if he wanted to go through that after I finish up here. So in short, this legislation is about survival. Survival for Vermont's dairy farmers and also Vermont's cheese makers. Those dairy farmers and those who make cheese, butter, yogurt, ice cream, and milk, they're all facing an uncertain future. The collapse of markets overnight has dozens into profound losses. The financial impact should already hit farm families and the forecast is dismal for next month. Also July into August with estimated milk prices at historic lows and it could extend into the fall. So why do we need the grants? Well, take a look at the cheese makers, for example. They lost about 50 to 90% of their markets. They dried up overnight. Those markets being primarily in some of the hot spots of New York, Boston, Washington and where Vermont cheese was on the menu. So those went away. So they had to find new ways to do business and also suffered tremendous losses because of that. If we take you to the farm or where the animals are, it's projected that small, medium, large farms, all of them will sustain losses. The average loss across the entire enterprise could be close to a loss of $270,000 in income over the grand scheme of all the farmers together. Those are averages and those are projected losses. So it's substantial. You said 270,000. 270,000 is the projected loss of income over the average of all the farms. We've got about 760 farms we're talking about. So we're saying the average losses over that entire field is about $270,000. So it's substantial per farm. If it's the average per farm over the losses for all of them. So you take your large farms, your medium farms, your small farms, certified small farms all together, the losses could total up into $270,000 across the entire enterprise there. We also have five farms that closed already in the month of May and many more could follow if we don't act. So as we continue to try to open up Vermont again, it's important that we keep these farms in business. You take our cheese makers. We've spent the last two decades growing this cheese maker industry diversified our operations and many of those are at risk if we do not do something to help them get through the next few months. So it also hits other people in the equation as well. So other business that rely on dairy are at risk as well. So those that rely on dairy for paycheck, we're talking about the feed and seed dealers, the veterinarians, those who sell to and supply our farmers and all the jobs that were related to dairy. Hundreds of jobs are at stake because of dairy. And if they can't get a paycheck, they can't pay their employees a paycheck. So it's a spiraling effect on that. So what is our proposal? It's twofold. One is a proposal to give stimulus grants to dairy farmers. And the second part is to give stimulus checks to those that are processing dairy into a product. The total package is $50 million. $40 million would be allocated to dairy farmers. The remaining $10 million would be allocated to dairy processes, including those who make cheese, butter, yogurt, ice cream, and milk that have all sustained losses under COVID-19. It's a similar situation for our friends that own restaurants, inns and hotels and small businesses. Many of those are located in our small towns and villages and these grants would provide some relief and some hope that pushes Vermont towards recovery. We need to push people towards recovery through this. And it's about survival and setting up farmers for success down the road. So our proposal is a $50 million package with stimulus grants to dairy farmers and dairy processors. And I'm happy to take some questions or if you would like, Steve can run down sort of the nuts and bolts of the bill as well, Senator. Yeah. Well, thank you, Anson. On the five farms that have closed recently, do you know if they're small, medium, or large or what the production was on those five farms? I don't have that right offhand. My gut tells me they're on the small to medium size. I don't believe any of them were in the large category, but it's the small to medium size farmers. Yeah. And the question I have in regards to that is what happens to their quota system? Does it make the other farmers, instead of being at 15%, 14%? Because I don't, what I'm concerned about is our losing our production and having New York pick it up, pick it up. And if we're going to lose production, our farmers that are left, ought to be able to pick up that quota or that gain in the loss of milk. Yeah. I don't have an answer for that. We've based it on the payment structure based on four categories. And we thought we'd begin on March 1st because that's kind of when things started to really impact the dairy industry. And also we don't want, we thought starting at that date, we don't want people coming in and out of the different categories if you did it upon passage of the legislation. So it sort of sets the bar on March 1st as a way to, when COVID really started to really start to heat up and impact what was happening in dairy. So that's kind of our stake in the ground that we thought that would be a good date to start with, with our group. But happy to explore in more detail sort of the ones that did exit the business since March 1st to figure out what category they are in and the size of their operation and their production for you. Yeah. Bobby? Yes. Bobby, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Do you see the blue hands that are up? Are you aware of the blue hands? Rodney has his hand up and so does Terry. And I don't know if you were finished with your questioning, but they both have questions. Yeah. We don't use blue hands. We just put our finger up like that. But no, go ahead. Rodney, you had a question and then I'll get Terry. It's not a question. It's a statement. So I know with my cows and I know some others too, they didn't go out of production. They went to different farms. And so you didn't lose, I don't believe you lost any production in the state of them all. They just went to different farms. And Agromark had a short, and I don't know if it's still active now or not, but they had a short, wouldn't know where the farms that went out could transfer some of their base to other farms. Not all the base, but some of it. So depending on if they were able to acquire the base, you know, that might change their quota type. Yeah. I know some main farms have sold their cows. And the reason they got rid of the cows is because of the base. And Agromark was allowing the base to go with the cows. So the farmer that bought the cows was paying, of course, more money. But the cows went to the beefhouse and the quota went to the farm. And I think that's a pretty poor policy for the milk processors to get into. I think there should be some regulation on that too, because now they're putting value on the quota already. And but anyways, thank you, Rodney. Terry? It's just another indication that the whole industry wants to go to large farms and not small farms. Yeah. Terry, did you have a question? We had one, I believe you would consider him a small farm. I think under 200 cows anyway, that his cows went between a week and two weeks ago. And then this morning, he was advertising his Agromark base for sale. So I'm not sure what they charge for the base, but I thought that was interesting. But he would be good. I believe that cows went to another farm. I'm not sure where, but so they're still in production at some point. I believe they I consider them an organic farm. Yeah, there are other rows. Yeah, I was just wondering if we could get some more details, particularly on the stimulus to processors, the payments to processors. I have more questions about the big pack package in general, but wanted to hear some details on how the money would be distributed before we get into broader questions, if that's okay. Yeah, I answer. Sure, I don't know if it's appropriate, Senator, if maybe at this point, Steve could maybe walk you through some of the some of the key points of the of the legislation so that you can get some real some real details. I think that might be helpful if you if you if you'd like that. Yeah, that'd be fine. Well, thank you. And thank you so much to both members of the committee, both committees. We know how much you all care about this issue. And it's been heartening to us as we try to develop this plan to know that you share our goals. And so that makes this part of it. And it's such a difficult situation that makes it easier knowing that we all share the same commitment to help the dairy farmers and the dairy processors. So we've tried to construct a plan that fits within the federal parameters as this is part of the Coronavirus Relief Fund money. And also distributes the money as best we can to those who most need it. So essentially there are two, as the secretary said, two different programs. One is $40 million to dairy farmers. Another is $10 million to dairy processors. I think a key for everyone to think about as we evaluate this program is that the goal is to compensate for economic harm. So we're not just we're not proposing that flat packages be presented. Instead, each person to qualify for the funding, and this is something that we think is required by federal law, needs to demonstrate actual losses. So what we propose is our maximum amounts based on the economic harm that's proven by the individual applicant. So how we've defined economic harm is that it has to be expenses or lost revenue that are related to the COVID-19 pandemic. So that's the threshold question. If you've lost revenue or if you have additional expenses related to the pandemic, then we believe you're eligible to receive these funds. Some other pieces that we've added, those criteria for economic harm, is you need to be a current producer. And this raises the question of those farms that have already gone under, whether or not that's the right policy. This is something you'll have to think of. The idea here was to keep farms in business. And I think the state across the package has had a similar requirement that businesses either need to be operating, or if they're closed, because of the pandemic, they need to have a good faith plan to reopen. So that's a policy choice that at least preliminarily was made, was that we want to save those operating farms, because that is a huge goal that all of us share. Another piece is that they have to demonstrate that the losses are caused by the pandemic. So that's kind of hand-in-hand what I've already said, but it's got to be, it can't just be a loss related to something else. It has to be caused by COVID-19. And then I think the Secretary touched on this before, but the period, and this is prescribed by federal loss, so I don't think this can change, is the period of losses has to be between March 1st of 2020 and December 30th of 2020. The losses have to be incurred, and that's quite clear in the federal act during those dates. So that we propose losses for that time period, because that's what federal law states, we also think it's appropriate to start there, because that's when the losses really began to trigger. And as I think the Secretary already said, we also propose freezing the evaluation of the farms and the processors on March 1st, so that when we're evaluating anybody now, what we've proposed is that we'll be evaluating them as they were registered or licensed with the agency as of March 1st. And that's so that there's no attempt to shift size status because of the funds. And it could be, we've tried to make this as administratively as simple as possible so that we can hopefully expedite the payments and not have to spend a lot of time trying to verify exactly what's happened. So that's part of the basis is to freeze the time as of March 1st for that reason. So as far as the farm categories go, as mentioned, there are four. These are all based on existing statutory parameters that I believe were all developed for water quality purposes. But the four categories I'm sure you're all familiar with are small farms, certified small farms, medium farms, and large farms. So the small farms are typically under 50 cows. And just to be cleared, sheep and goats, dairy sheep and dairy goats are also included in the package. They will fall, I think, almost all within the small farm category, although there may be one or two in the certified small farm category. But I don't believe so. I think they're all small farms. And as I understand it, there's approximately 45 of those, but our numbers are not completely concrete at this juncture. So the small farms are mostly under 50 cows. There is some variance on that depending upon the potential to discharge. But for the most part, those small farms have less than 50 cows. The grant amount that we're proposing, and again, this is the maximum grant amount that we're proposing for small farms, is $42,500. As the secretary mentioned earlier, we projected approximate losses of $270,000 per farm on average. Obviously, that varies depending on your production and size. But we've proposed the minimum grant of $42,500 for small farms. That means that any farm out there who's lost $42,500 will get it. And that's by design. The next category is... You said that was the minimum amount. Is there more than that for that group? No. Sorry, the minimum amount for all farms, including even a large farm, but the maximum amount for a small farm would be $42,500. But for any farm in the state that lost, at least $42,500, that would be covered. So every farm would get at least that amount, but that's the maximum for small farms. I didn't say that very well. Sorry. So the next category is certified small farms. And those are farms that are 199 cows or fewer. Generally, they have at least 50, and they're also certified for water quality purposes. So most of those farms fall between 50 and 199 cows. And the proposed grant amount for them, maximum grant amount bumps up to $60,000. So between those two categories, and again, our numbers are not precise yet, but between those two categories, we estimate that that's about 80% of all of the farms in Vermont are either small farms or certified small farms. So given the depth of this crisis and given how vulnerable many small farms are, we've really tried to prioritize and protect those small farms with covering at least that initial base of loss that they can demonstrate. So it may or may not cover the whole loss during the short term, but it certainly is a big help. So for the next category, it's medium farms. And those range from 200 to 699 cows. And the maximum grant amount for those proposed farms is $90,000. And we think there's roughly 105 medium farms. Yeah, that's what we had. So that's about 16% or so of the total. Again, these aren't precise, but close. And then the final category of farms is large farm operations. And those are operations that have more than 700 cows or 700 or more. And the proposed maximum grant for that tier of farm is $110,000. So for the four tiers, it ranges from 425 at the low end for the small farms up to $110,000 for the largest farms. How did you reach those numbers? Because if you've got 49 cows, probably a third of them are dry cows. So you're milking two-thirds maybe. How did you reach that $42,500 figure? Well, it's been a bit of an exercise in trying to determine how to allocate the available we think or the available funds or hope or the available funds of $40 million among the categories. And we don't have a magic formula to do that. We did prioritize the smaller farms because of the five years basically of depressed milk prices. We know that puts the smallest farms in a very vulnerable spot. They're often not as able to, they don't have the same assets or the same economies of scales and aren't as able to reach alternate mechanisms to survive. But we also believe that some of the larger operations are more likely eligible for other forms of federal aid like the Paycheck Protection Act, the PPP or the Idle Grant. So on some level, because the goal is to maintain these farms, we had five already, close this month, and we don't want to lose any more. I think that we tended toward trying to protect the smallest and most vulnerable. So potentially their entire losses may be covered. Their entire losses related, you know, this is all short term, none of us know how long this is going to unfold. But they have an opportunity potentially to have all of their losses related to COVID-19 covered. We considered doing a variety of other things. The large farms, some of them are, I think some of them, one or two, maybe over 3,000 cows. So if we allocated it per cow or by 100 weight, the large farms would get an enormous payment, which again is a policy choice. But that would take away from the payments obviously to the smaller farms. And given that 80% of our farms roughly are in those smaller categories, we tended toward trying to protect that vast majority of the farms, while also obviously bolstering the rates as the farm size goes up. So the large farm would get about two and a half times, maybe a bit more than that, than the smallest farm. But we did not try to designate the dollars exactly by production or by cow. And we had that discussion. It's an important one. Oftentimes, as I understand it, dairy policy is designated by production. And we had some concerns about doing that only because that tends to also lead to overproduction at times. But there's no magic formula here, Senator. We tried to do it in a way. One thing that we really wanted to ensure is that everyone who is eligible would be able to qualify for the maximum grant. So within these categories, we're trying to divvy up to $40 million. And then we have some contingency plans I'll explain for folks. And if the money is not expended, what might happen with that any extra money? But does that answer your question? Yeah. Well, for the time being, in Ruthwine to know about how you're going to deal with the processor money. Yep. So that should I go ahead or? Sure. Okay. Okay. So you needed that mute button. Bobby, John O'Brien has his hand up. And I don't know if it's a question regarding what Steve just said or not, but I don't want to cut Ruth off, but he's putting his little blue hand up. And I know you're not in sleep paying attention to little blue. That was green, I might. So did you have a question regards to dairy, John? I did, Bobby. Just while we're on this part of it, the $40 million part, how's it going to work for the farmers to prove lost revenue and expenses? For example, if you're shipping to an organic processor, your losses have been a lot less just because that price has remained a lot higher. Whereas if you're a DFA or agri-mart, is it going to be up to the processor to show this is what milk would have been and now this is where it's at? Or are each of the 650 farms going to have to show we would have gotten this milk checked, but now it's 40% of what it would have been? So that's a great question. And I don't know that the parameters are all fully drawn and in part because we knew you all would have input as well. But the milk prices we project is where the majority of the losses are going to be. In the proposed legislation, we didn't draft a comparative period. So when we estimated roughly $66 million in losses this year related to milk prices, I understand that we averaged last year's price to this year's expected price. And that that was about a $2.42 difference per 100-way. So that's an average that we used to get to the 100 million, I'm sorry, the 66 million. So whether or not that's the right comparator, I don't know. I mean, January, the price this year was I think about 18-13 for conventional milk. I believe most people projected that the milk prices would actually go up this year. And instead, they dropped starting in February, they dropped about a dollar. In March, they dropped again. And then in April, it was precipitous almost $3 and just from a month over month. So I think it would probably be advantageous to have in the legislation, at least for the price of milk, what the comparator point is. So for instance, maybe it's the January milk price, maybe it's something different. It's got to be related to the pandemic. We know that it can't just be arbitrary. But as I've been thinking about it, I think perhaps a January price is a reasonable price to, because it's real. We know it's there. It's not the projected increase that we expected. But we think in the summer, prices may be down more than $5 from that January price. So that's a huge loss in a very short period of time. But the milk prices are only one thing. I mean, the CRF fund covers both expenses and loss related to the pandemic. And this may apply more to processors and farmers, but everybody has had to adjust. And so yes, we are envisioning that people tell us how they've lost. We did not build in the parameters of how they have to do that, whether we should or not is a reasonable question. But we wanted to be as open as possible for everybody to tell us what their losses are, rather than for us to try to project what they may be. They're the business. They're the ones operating. They have to certify to us that these are real losses. They have to do so and demonstrate those losses. So milk prices is probably the easiest thing. But if a married couple is operating a farm and the husband suddenly stays home to watch the kids because the kids are no longer in school, and they have to hire an employee to cover the husbands no longer participating. And of that to me is also a valid expense. So we didn't define it because we didn't want to limit it. But a great question. Yeah, Michael, Michael Grady, can we use, do you think we can use a January figure to determine the downturn and the price and have it qualify as a loss? I think that's a possibility. You also have other possibilities. I'm looking at the CFAP rule, the federal assistance rule, and they're using basically the first quarter production times a determined payment rate. So there's opportunity for you to come up with different payment structures, depending on what you want to do. Yeah. Thank you, Michael. Steve, I think we're all set. John, did you have a question? Thank you. I was just hoping that Steve could repeat the number of certified small farms and large farm operations in the state because the sound cut out when you did that. Sure. I don't know that I gave the number of each independently, but I did say about 80% total are within those categories. And I know the rough numbers, but they're still a bit fluid as we nail them down. But I think roughly it's about 260 in each category. And I think small farms are a bit smaller than that, and certified small farms may be more like 264. But essentially, there's about 670 dairies right now, and approximately 520 to 530 of them are in the two smallest categories. Yeah, 905 medium size and about 33 large farms. Can we get to Ruth's question now on how you're going to pay out for the manufacturing processing? Absolutely. So what we've proposed is paying the dairy processors based on the category of their license. So what that means, so dairy processors are licensed with us based on the pounds of milk they process per day. So there are six different categories. Initially, and you may see proposed legislation that also had a seventh category with frozen desserts as we've borne down on the data more. It looks like we don't have it. We thought we had four, it looks like we don't have any of those anymore. So it should be just the six categories based on milk processed per day. So the range for the payments is 56,500 at the lowest end. And I'll tell you where they fit in just a moment. The high that we propose is 185,000 for the largest processors of whom there are only a few. But most of our processors fall in the category of under 500 pounds processed per day. And that's the 56,5 that we've proposed. The next category is markedly larger 500 pounds to 9,999. So that's up to 20 times bigger than the smallest category. Then the next answer that the maximum again, these are maximum grant payments depending on showing economic harm. The maximum grant to those processors, we propose $70,000. The next size is from 10,000 pounds to 49,999. And we propose a maximum grant of 97,000 dollars. The next size is 50,000 to 99,999. And that proposed maximum grant is 127,000. Only two left. The next one is 100,000 to 499,999. And that maximum grant is 157,000. And then the final category is those processors who processed over 500,000 pounds of milk a day. And the proposed grant for that group is $185,000. So again, almost 80% of our processors are in the two smallest categories. So most of them are in the under 500 pound range. And then the next biggest chunk by far are in the 500 to 9,999 category. There's about about 20% are in the next categories. And only four that I think there's only four in the biggest category and four in the second to biggest category. So again, we're bottom heavy in terms of the number of different processors we have. So there's a, if you'd like, there's a couple of other parts of our proposal that I could outline and then I'll be done if that's okay. I'll be left. So I'm going to say sure. Go ahead and finish. What was your small amount again though? That's the one thing I didn't hear for this under 500 pounds. The dollar amount, Senator? Yeah. Yeah. The dollar amount. 56,500. 56,500. Okay. Why don't you finish? Then I have follow up question. Okay. So as discussed earlier, this is all of these grants are proposed maximum. Steve, I'm sorry to interrupt, but Rodney had his hand up. So Rodney, do you still want to ask a question about what Steve was just saying? My question was the larger processors include any of the co-ops like agro-meric or DFA or any of those? I believe so. I believe so, Representative. I think it's all processors who, yes, I believe they are included, but they're not necessarily in the very largest category. Yeah. So some of these processors are putting a surcharge on farmers' milk checks, COVID surcharges. So with the hope that we can figure out how they don't get a double whammy, I mean get double paid by the farmer and get also get grants from the state. Well, that's a great question. And I was actually just about to go into some of the limitations on this. And that is these have to be actual losses. Not only do they have to be actual losses, but they also cannot be insured losses. And they can't be covered by other federal grants. And that we believe is a federal legal requirement. But we also think it obviously makes good sense. None of this money is designed to give anyone profit. It's designed to allow them to survive actual losses. So part of what we envision in the proposal, and this is in the draft legislation, but also in our application will be you have to both certify that you have these losses and also certify that these same losses are not covered by either insurance or another federal grant. So we do want people to be covered as much as possible for all losses. So if they're, so we want them to use the money as long as it's real, but they can't use it twice. They can't. So if they're if they're taking a percentage of the farmer's paycheck to cover their losses, that's not a federal grant. That's not insurance. It's taken right out of the farmer's pocket. So my I guess my point would be then that's revenue for them and they can only claim losses. So if they've, you know, to put numbers out there, if they claim $500 in losses, but they've taken $100 from this surcharge, then from my perspective, they'd have $400 in actual losses because they've used the surcharge to recoup some of that loss. But in no way has this program or any of the programs been set up to try to make them whole. Like on the example you just gave, if they had $500 in losses, they got $100 out of the farmer and we put in $400, that means their losses would be, you know, no skin off their hands to just be covered. And in no way are we going to cover all the farmer losses or all the hospital losses or, you know, the food shelves losses, you know, there isn't enough money to cover anybody's total losses. And I think that's right. So that's what we feel too, Senator, that there's not enough money to go around. But we did try to design this proposal so that we could cover the losses to each farmer up to the maximum proposed grant. So we tried to design it that if every farm within each category had those losses, we'd have enough money to pay everyone for those losses. We don't believe we have enough money to pay everybody for their actual losses. And Bobby, could I just interject here? In the next few minutes, the House members are going to have to leave to go because we have four at 11. Earlier in this conversation, there was a question about favoring the smaller farmers. And Alison Eastman sent me a chat, and I'm just going to read it because it's pretty clear. It says, just a point to make, the large farms receive the PPP, which most likely will become a grant, whereas the majority of small farms didn't get the PPP, the Paycheck Protection Program. Usually the husband and wife are not on the payroll as they operate as a sole proprietor. We also took that into consideration when figuring the max grant amounts. But they could get the PUA unemployment program through the state. Yeah, we're under, we're understanding that a lot of them have been having trouble accessing PUA. So that would be, I'd be interested if you've taken testimony, which I'm not aware of. I tend to watch your live feeds after the fact. But from what we're hearing, the PUA has been very difficult for them to access as well. So the PPP, obviously there are some small farms that do have folks on payroll and they would have been able to access it. But the larger the farm, the larger the PPP, and the larger the grant that would be, the amount that then would become a grant in the end. So we did take that into consideration as well as Idle and all of the programs that they would be eligible for. And how did they take the announcement? Did you gain pushback? No, to be honest with you, we've had very productive conversations. And I think folks have been very positive about not only the work that's been done by your committee, we tried to frame this. So we were in line with the proposals similar to what Senate Ag was working on by farm size. And, you know, it was tough. As Steve said, we were looking at pounds of production by cow, then looking at, you know, what they were able to be eligible for, for grants in totality. It was hard. And Steve kept reminding us that we need to have equity within this. I see he's smirking, but he's very good at making sure that we stay straight and narrow. So I just want you all to understand that we have gone through the exercise and no matter which way, you know, we continue to look at the figures. There still seems to be some inequity in it. And, you know, our secretary has been very, you know, forward with us that we need to not separate organic from conventional. And we recognize that there's two different pricing systems. And sometimes three, there's folks that don't ship to a, they ship direct to a processor that's processing cheese, and they're not going through the federal pricing system. So it gets really dicey when we're trying to base it on prices, because not everybody goes to the Boston Blend price or the federal prices that we see, we assume it, but that's not the truth. Yeah, are there other questions from any of the other members? Because Rose? Well, if a house member has a question, I would defer to them because I know they have to leave. I don't see any hands up. Pardon? I don't see any hands up. Any house members hands up. Then I give up just a specific question. I have broader questions that I can wait on. But Steve, I'm wondering if a dairy farmer of any type is also does on-farm processing, would they qualify for both programs, the dairy farmer program and also the processor program, and would you need them to split out the two sides of their operation in order to show separate losses, or did you account for that? Well, that's a great question, Senator. And we have discussed that. And as we are proposing it, we think it's perfectly acceptable for them to recover both as a processor and as a farmer provided that they have the losses in each distinct category. So it would have to be separately done, and they are separately registered or licensed with us. But if a farmer is a farmer and a processor, and they have distinct losses in both sides of their business, then we think that's a viable thing for them to recover in both capacities. The other issue, I mean, it deals with all this, but over on the Senate side, of course, I sit in appropriations as well as on ag. And we keep hearing, well, what are you doing with this money that's going to fix the problem or sort of fix it, help fix it for the long term. And of course, over on the ag and the Senate side, we've talked off and on all winter about setting up a different way of marketing our milk and pricing, not marketing so much as pricing our milk with an in-state order, instead of going with the federal order out of Boston, which New York has basically taken a lot of the class one market away from Vermont. And our milk almost 60% now is utilized here in Vermont. So we could do our own market pricing. Did you guys talk about long term issues that we might be able to incorporate into this to maybe alleviate the problem down the road that we're facing now or that we've faced for the last five years, basically? So go ahead, Steve. No, no, no. Are you, Mr. Secretary, please? I would say this really is about survival. And this is about getting people to the fall. And those are enormous policy discussions. And I'm not sure we have time to deal with those in this particular bill. We are all about change and trying to make a better spot for our dairy farmers. But I don't know if we can do that big a lift to get there with this. And we may not be able to save all the ones even with this package. And that's troubling. I never went at the agency, wakes up every day hoping that we can make a better life for our dairy farmers who give so much to Vermont that extend well beyond the farm to their communities, to the travel and tourism industry. And my fear is if we don't act on this, we're going to lose many, many, many farms. And that would be a much, much worse situation for our communities. And I believe we can have those thoughtful discussions once we get through the crisis. I know the Vermont Bill Commission is forwarded a growth management plan. And we continue to see some action on that. I know some of the co-ops have taken action on their own with this issue. And I'll be it very, very difficult for our dairy farmers to do this sort of on the fly. But I think they may be more open to discussions about a growth management. They were maybe pre-COVID. So I think our goal right here is really try to get people to the fall so we can reevaluate and see where we're headed on a bigger level. And of course, we all know dairy is really complicated right now because it is a federal system. And it's very hard for us to distance ourselves from that if we just go it alone. But we're open to those discussions. We just don't think we have the time within the two week period here to do that. Bobby, it's a little before 11 and the House members are going to have to jump off here and go on the floor. I just want to thank you for including us in this. And it's really good to see all the senators here on the meeting. Are you doing anything important in there or just going to go in and listen? Well, I'm expecting we're always going to do something important. So thank you. Thank you very much. We'll keep working on this. And I don't know where this bill is if it's going to start out in the Senate or start out in the House. And we'll try to get to that in the next few minutes. And we should meet again, I would hope, soon with you folks and figure out logistics and all that. I would like that. Don't forget about our food security stuff when you guys are talking by your own committee because I think somewhere in here we're going to have to incorporate something into our bill along those lines as well. We've been talking a lot about regional food supply system, which I find really exciting. So let's continue that conversation. I don't know if it takes the form of a bill or what, but I think it's great to work together. And it's good to see you all. Yeah. Well, have a good session and we'll keep rolling. Thanks, Bob. Thank you, guys. See you all. So, committee, do you have questions for Anson or Steve? Anthony, is she your hand up? Yeah, one was a comment and the other was a question. Excuse me. I just think it'll be interesting to see how some of the large processors talk about what their losses are, given the fact that they're paying less than the bill because they're processing. It's kind of an interesting idea that they're going to present losses. I'm not saying they can't do it, but I'm sure they're going to go about doing it since they're getting their raw product at a much lower price and yet they're still selling things in the supermarket for the same price. So that's just a comment. But people just mentioned before they get off the line that House members that came up a little beefy. People mentioned food sovereignty and hunger programs. And my question is whether, I mean, I appreciate the fact that all this time and energy went into coming up with the program for dairy farmers, which I think is important, but I'm wondering whether we're going to put as much energy and time into developing programs to support non-dairy farm groups, vegetable farmers, other kinds of livestock producers who have suffered losses as well, and also need to make investments to adapt to the new marketplace, whether it's organizing CSAs or developing processing plants or developing websites, whatever it might take for non-dairy farmers to survive this crisis as well. So I'm just wondering if the agency has started putting time into coming up with a proposal for non-dairy farmers as well as dairy farmers. May I answer that for the wheeler? So quickly when COVID came along, Senator Polina, one of the first things that we had brought forward to the Secretary was we had uncommitted funds in the Working Lands Enterprise initiative. And we were able to, some of that money, it came from different avenues. So we were able to look at funds that previously had been put into pockets of transitioning farms years ago into organic and it was sitting. There was some money at NOFA, some money at Vermont Egg Credit Corp, not a lot of money, but it adds up. And so we approached Secretary Tebbets and were able to just release a program for grants ranging from 5,000 to 25,000. We put it up on our social media to assist these producers with exactly what you're saying, those that had to change to do online ordering with their websites. Also, I know the administration had put 750,000 in one-time money into Working Lands for this year and they're interested in working with the legislature to continue potentially that money to be used for COVID. And it is nice to know that a $5,000 grant can really help those producers develop websites and such and up to 25,000, it seems to be advantageous. The other part and maybe the Secretary will touch more on this is it's our understanding that agriculture, the dairy farms are regulated under two divisions at our agency, dairy and water quality. So we have a pretty good pulse of what's going on in that community. And also are able to give the numbers as to how many we have. Now, when it comes down to fruits and veggies and other producers, we don't necessarily have that type of data. So it's our understanding that these producers do and will qualify for the programs that are being rolled out at ACCD. So I don't want anybody to think they've been excluded. That's not the intention here. And we are working with ACCD on our legislation as we move forward to see what programs they will be able to qualify for. So I know Secretary Tevitz had a meeting last night about that very thing and perhaps he wants to build on it. But I appreciate the question. I think it's great. We don't want folks to think we're leaving others out and it's just about dairy. So thank you for that. Yeah, and I would just encourage that all that are in agriculture to really take a deep dive and look at some of those programs that are being unveiled by the Commerce Agency. One of the goals through this was to try to develop programs that could be run efficiently, not too complicated. We could get them out the door. So we were willing to take on the dairy component and the other folks that are in other forms of agriculture, whether it be a sugar maker, maybe it's a sugar maker that has sustained losses because of COVID because they basically didn't have any retail at their sugar house because no one could visit during this period of time. So they should poke around and look at the Commerce Department Avenue and there's substantial monies that are going to be available for that. So I'm all for this and I hope that anyone in agriculture that sustained losses that they'll reach out to us, we can work with them. We're doing our best to make sure that everyone in agriculture is covered and try to make up for the losses. Totally agree and totally understand and that's one of the reasons immediately we repurposed that money and got the application out the door. So it's an active application now for folks under the working lands and I think it's open to the 31st. So those are important grants out there as well for folks that's out on the field already that's non-dairy. I'm sorry, did you say they're open until the 31st? Yes, until the 31st. If somebody wants to apply, we'd have to apply between now and the 31st. Correct. That's because of the year end, 630. So the money needs to be obligated by 630. There was no intent to rush folks for this application but by the time it was deobligated the board acted very fast to make sure that we could get it obligated by 630. But will there be more money after that then? Yes, yep. So there's 750,000 one-time money in the governor's budget. Last year the legislature had put $500,000 one-time money which was targeted to dairy and there's some great projects that those were put towards in this fiscal year. So next year there's 750 in the governor's budget. To be honest, I can't remember what was in the latest draft of the bill. I'd have to probably look to Michael Grady for that. But at this point I know that last night the administration had made contact with both the secretary and I asking if that could be utilized for COVID relief and it's over and above what the regular general fund money was. So 750,000 could be very helpful during these times for COVID relief. Well we just want to make sure that we have adequate funding as we go forward through the rest of the year. Not just fiscal year but the rest of the calendar year. And I would also, sorry I kind of clogged up today. Well it's hot temperature. I can't adapt. But also I want to make sure that we're making it clear to farmers that this money is available because I still hear from folks. I've heard from folks as of yesterday who are saying you know when are we going to do something for non-dairy farmers? So I think the fact maybe the program just needs to be made more clear to the public and to the farmers who might benefit from it. And as you've said we want to make sure that we are really building a food system which includes dairy, includes diversified non-dairy and also includes hunger programs, nutrition programs. So we need to come out with a strategy that helps us rebuild the system stronger than we started out with. But I appreciate what you explained so far. That sounds good but we just need to make sure it's enough. Thank you. Yeah. Hey Michael or Grady, have you been running any of their numbers that are paid out to like for small farms, small farms certified like the 42,500 for the 271 farms? Have you run any of those numbers yet? Do you want to know what the total is for those? I think it put a little different perspective on things when you get see the total going to the small farm uncertified, small farm certified on the way up through because we're dividing up 40 million there and up through to the large. Yeah, so we should have those numbers. Sure. I have rough numbers. So a small, non-certified would be about 10.5 million. A certified small farm would be basically 15.9, 16 million. The medium, hold on a second, the medium is, hold on a second, that's, the medium is 9.5, approximately 9.45 and the large is, yeah, exactly, 3.6, 3.63. To be honest with you Michael, I think the large is going to be more than that. We often say there's 33 large farms in Vermont. Some of them have two large farm facilities registered. So there's, that's the part Steve was talking about that, you know, we're registered. If they pay two LFO permits, are they eligible for two LFOs to receive these types of payments? Well, I think that's a question about policy for the committee. Yeah. General Assembly. Well, as of this morning, our conversation was oftentimes we say there's 33 LFOs, but there's 42, and correct me if I'm wrong Steve, there's 42 that pay invoices to the state for an LFO fee. Well then that would increase the number to 4.2. Yeah. That sounds right. How come we were given 33 when we asked for the numbers? Well, I think it's because of the owners, right? How many LFOs? And so they have multiple locations that they're paying for. I think it's the way that we're asked the question and how we're relaying the information quite honestly. Well, I think we asked for the number of LFOs. We didn't ask for the number of farmers LFOs. We asked for the number of LFO firms. Correct. And I think again, Senator, I apologize for the confusion, but when you're talking to the dairy division, it's very different from talking to the water quality division. Water quality regulates each location. And you know, that's where we're trying to, you know, get our numbers. So they're in line. Ruth, you had a question and Chris? Chris, if you want to go ahead, because you haven't been here. Okay. That's right. Well, first of all, I just want to thank Anson and Steve and Allison for coming and presenting this and giving us these details. It's really helpful to hear it. And, you know, as a senator from Addison County, I appreciate that you've spent so much time trying to figure out a program that makes sense for dairy farmers. And I want to pick up a little bit on what Senator Polina was saying about all making sure we can care of all of our farmers and the entire food systems and agriculture sector. And Allison, I appreciate what you were saying about the WELAB grants that you got those out. And I would love to, if you could provide us with more details in a list, perhaps, of those grants so we can sort of see where those investments went and for what kind of thing. As soon as you have that information available, that would be helpful to have. But it's striking to me, frankly, Secretary Tebbitt's that the agency of agriculture is not stepping up to make things easy across the board for agriculture. And instead is relying on the agency of commerce and community development and sort of throwing farmers and producers that are not dairy farmers or dairy producers into the bucket with all other kinds of businesses. And while in some ways that obviously makes sense, in other ways, it makes it much, much harder for those people and those businesses and farmers in the sector. And it's a little disappointing that the agency of agriculture isn't stepping up to make sure that they are taken care of and that they don't have as many hoops to go through. Because as you've noted, it's been really hard for some people to get PUA or to get PPP and all these other programs. And I think we should be making it as the agriculture committee and committees and the agency should be making it as easy as possible for all farmers to qualify and get the funding they need to cover their expenses and their losses during this crisis. And I also note that there's not anything in here for food security, which is something that we've been talking about a lot in this committee. And how do we link food security with local agriculture and local foods and making sure that we're feeding people and that we're creating a local market for our farmers of all types? And finally, there's nothing in the package that's directed toward workers. And this is something that we as the Senate have tried really hard to do across the board with the essential workers program. And also this committee working on farm worker program to retain farm workers. So I guess I see those as kind of big holes in your proposal, even though, you know, I more or less like the general idea you have for dairy. I think I'm a little disappointed that you didn't take a more comprehensive approach as the agriculture agency. Thank you, Senator. And I would just stress that farmers that are non-dairy are still eligible to go through the commerce application. The commerce agency is also you know, trying to develop a program that's it is not complicated can be used is using tax records, losses, etc. So I think, you know, we are working with them and we're happy to message to the non-dairy community that program. We've also already rolled out as we mentioned the working lands program. We all need to get that out the door. So I totally agree with you that we are all about all agriculture. And I think our record is pretty strong across the agency of doing that working. We issued a comprehensive report working with farm to plate that that program is, you know, we did half of that reports already done and ready to be implemented. We just need to keep working on that. And you know, I'm really proud of our ag agriculture development division. They've been working around the clock getting resources, getting information to people looking for any possible grant money for them. And most of the work that they've been doing has been in the non-dairy section. So I think maybe we're just not messaging it correctly to the public that that work is being done. And totally agree. We're all about making any farmer what they're doing viable, important, and they're all very, very important to us. You know, no shape, size, difference. It doesn't matter to us. We want everyone to be part of the community and valuable. So you're right. We'll continue to work on that and we'll redouble our efforts on making sure that maybe we just need to message that we are those programs are out there. I know we issued a press release on the the wee lab. Maybe we need to issue it again. I know we have a significant listserv that we send information out to folks. You know, we've done it over social media channels. We know farmers are extremely busy this time of year. So they may not be able to you see it, but it's been out there for a while. And hopefully people will apply and we'll get some dollars out there. We've been working with the Vermont Community Foundation on food security. The agency was able to secure a $60,000 grant to take milk and butter and yogurt and repurpose that product to folks that were in need. That was significant from that. The private sector has stepped up. They also are donating dollars to that. So we think we can do another run of that, getting yogurt and butter and milk out to folks. So we continue to work on that. Our agency was involved in trying to make sure that the box program with the USDA was able to take part in Vermont. Trevor Lowell, who was in our AgDeV division, was instrumental in working with the Education Department and all the partners pulling that complicated application together. That's a $5.8 million program for Vermont. It also purchased a considerable amount of local produce. I just saw in Franklin County, some potato farmers are contributing to those boxes. They just had one yesterday in Burlington. So we're doing our best to move this stuff along and maybe we just got to re-up our efforts and we'll continue to do that. Thank you. Thank you, Anton, Chris. Anton, we're not the ag worker piece. You might want to touch on that as well too. Oh, sure. Yes. And we've been involved and Director Davis has taken the lead with the administration on that particular component of this subject. So we've had conversations with her through the agency of administration. So that one continues to be discussed and we've had a couple of positive discussions with Director Davis on that as well. Is that for workers on farms? Any farm workers? That's my understanding, yes. I think that that Ms. Davis is also talking about broadening it. People are not necessarily farm workers, but just immigrants in general. I think that's correct. Yes. Chris, you had a question? A question for the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary. I'm curious if I've been trying to think of and I know others have of sort of a multiplier effect and as we give COVID relief to different sectors of the economy, trying to come up with strategies that would multiply the impact. And so one example is restaurants. We all recognize the food service universe has just been devastated by these last few months and their busy season for many of them. The months ahead is looking pretty bleak. And so the governor's proposal, the administration's proposal directs a lot of money to restaurants as an example. And I'm wondering if you have been part of any thinking that would make it possible for some of that money to then be used to promote local agricultural products. So in other words, sweeten the deal somehow as we provide relief to restaurants if they are then committed to buying locally. It seems to me a real opportunity to get a little extra bang for our buck and help two sectors of the economy. And I'm curious if I just want to know if there's been thinking like that, if you would join us as we try to have those kinds of strategic discussions and if you could comment. Thank you. Sure, Senator. I'm happy to have a conversation with the Congress Agency and maybe there's an avenue to look at that. We have been involved in a pilot project that we're trying to get together with Brattleboro where we're trying to get together using some relief dollars to make meals for folks and use as much local agriculture as we can. It's going to be a pilot project. And we hope if that's successful in the Brattleboro region, we might be able to take it statewide, but we thought it would be best to work through a pilot program first. We've been working with the public safety agency on that and through FEMA and through that particular group. So there may be some COVID relief dollars that could be used for a restaurant program to make meals. I know other ones that are happening in the Chittenden County region that are not necessarily connected to FEMA, but there's some private groups working on that. Does that answer your question, Chris? Other questions from committee? Well, I just want to go back to something that Senator Hardy mentioned because I think it's important that we let farmers know that these things are available if they are going to be available. And I think in terms of messaging, there is sort of a feeling out there and I'm not saying this is overt or not, but that everybody's coming together to support the dairy industry, which is fine. We all want to support the dairy industry, but I think we want to make sure that we're really putting the message out loud and clear that there are now and will be resources for non-dairy farmers as well. I think it is partly a messaging thing. I don't think the average vegetable farmer is going to go to the agency of commerce and community development to look for money. They're going to wonder why they're not getting access to funds through the ag department. You know, you're their people. They're your people. You should be catering to them, not making them go to another agency. Yeah, and I've done my, you know, darndest to try to do that even when the program was unveiled last week. I made a point at that unveiling that it is, there are other opportunities for folks to participate in. You're absolutely right. We'll continue to message to folks that there are other programs that are going to be available. One important thing is we've got to get, we've got to know what the final thing is going to look like too, so we can determine, you know, what is, you know, what it's going to look like. And I know you guys are working hard on that, so as soon as we, you know, get something on paper that we think we can do, we will work our darndest to make sure that everyone in Vermont in the ag community knows about these programs and they may be eligible. We don't want to leave anyone out of this. Just a point of clarity too, and I don't know if this is helpful or not, but as somebody who previously sat in the legislature, I think it's important for us to maybe understand that, you know, working lands, the board, as formed by the legislature, has ACCD, Commerce, Forest Parks Recreation, and the Agency of Ag on that board. We work very well together. And two years ago, Secretary Tevitz asked if we could, we had a position leave the agency, if we could reorganize the incoming position to work between commerce and agriculture. And during this time, I would say that that shared position has been instrumental in our relationship in working together with ACCD. So I want to clear the air on the fact that they're working with another agency and not with us. We have an individual that works for the Agency of Ag, his name is Kyle Harris, and he is on our Ag development team and sits at the Agency of Commerce and Community Development. And in fact, we have an agr.covidresponse email that Kyle works on and also is in communication with commerce. So we have a very fluid relationship with commerce, and I just want to make sure that everybody understands that. So a lot of times I get it, I understand it, we are there for people. But during this time when we were working on farmers, markets, and guidance, we worked very closely with commerce. And Steve Collier has worked with their general counsel, John Kessler. And so there's some good communication going on between the two agencies. And I just want to make sure that that's understood. And it works well with the Working Lands Enterprise Initiative as well. Ruth, I go ahead. Thanks. Thank you, Bobby. And Allison, thank you. I appreciate how much your agencies work together. I just think that not everybody out in the field necessarily knows that and sort of, you know, they think of the agency of agriculture as their agency or want to be able to think that. So the fact that you have a shared position isn't as significant for the sort of average Vermont or who needs help right now. Although I do understand how important it is at the sort of that level. Last week I reached out to Abby Willard because one of the things we've talking about in this committee is really system changes and sector-wide changes that would be helpful. I mean, to sort of pick up on something that Senator Pearson mentioned is how do we get the biggest bang for our buck? We just had a whole Senate caucus talking about this that we want to invest the money obviously to respond to an emergency and a crisis. But also how can we have multiplier effects beyond December 30th 2020 and really make our ag sector and whatever sector we're talking about or housing sector or restaurant sector or art sector, whatever it is, more resilient, more able to weather the next storm and just sort of stronger for the entire state of Vermont. And so I asked Abby if she could send me a list and a lot of them are based on, as Secretary Sebbets mentioned, the ag strategic plan that was worked on. And I'm wondering if you had sort of one or two things from a sector-wide perspective that, you know, Abby put it in immediate term and just short-term and long-term kind of perspectives. But if you had some one or two things that if that you would include on a list that we should look at and think about as part of this package. To be honest with you, I think there's a bill, Michael Grady, that was drafted in House Ag, that was started on the ag strategic plan, correct? Yes, there was. I think I don't know how to do this diplomatically. Earlier, Steve said that he believes that there needs to be cost or expenses related to COVID in order to qualify for any of the CARES Act funding. Some of the proposals made by Abby or Ellen, I think you need to be very persuasive in determining that they had expenses or costs incurred due to COVID. So I would ask the agency to to see if they can find common ground between those two positions. Thank you, Michael. I'm wondering, you folks must have figured out something to do with the money to come up with the different categories. I don't know. I have a hard time believing that we're going to get rid of 16 million dollars to the farms below 50 cows. And so my question is what's going to happen to the money if we don't get rid of it to the farms? I can answer that if you'd like, Senator, at least what our proposal lays out. So you're absolutely right that allotting the money based on actual expenses is something that's important and something we thought about. And really, the expenses only start as of March 1. So even right now, expenses or losses, we're talking about less than three months. So but the funding is available to cover losses for the year. So what we propose is that anyone who submits an application will only be eligible for demonstrated losses as of the date of the application. However, one, right? Say that again, Senator, sorry. Is that March 1? No, no, sorry. So the date of the application. So let's say that you, this package is passed quickly. Maybe people can get their applications in by July 1, I would say. So the point is they could get their losses from March 1 until the date of the application. So if that's June 1, I'm sorry, July 1, that's four months. So their losses at four months are not their losses for the year, right? So what we propose is that they get their losses that they've already accrued in an initial payment. If that initial payment doesn't equal their maximum possible payment, that their application would be remained pending. And then they could submit an addendum later in the year up until October 1 to cover their subsequent losses. So say July, August, September. So as of October 1, they could submit an addendum to show additional losses up to the maximum, not beyond it. And then what we proposed was any money of it, because this money is not spent by December 30, I believe we lose it. So our proposal is that any funding, any of those 40 million or 10 million appropriated funds that are not spent as of November 1, that we could use the remaining funds for any farmer who's experienced losses during the pandemic. And we think some of those losses may be more evident later in the year as crops are produced, as there's more data, more information. That's a loose proposal. We wanted to leave it open-ended as more information becomes unknown to us and known to the state. But obviously that could be tailored, however, anybody believes is best. So is that written into your proposed bill? Or is that? Yes. It is. And where is your bill? Have you submitted it to the House, to the Senate? Is it sitting in the administration's office? When are we going to get a copy of it? So I believe I think we can send a draft of it to you later today, if you'd like. I don't have a final because it did go to the administration and I know they're preparing to submit it as one package, including all the grants. And there's one thing I wanted to say about the agency of agriculture administering these grants. One concern we have is we don't want bureaucratic delay any more than necessary. So what we've already proposed is, approximately 800 applications between the farms and the processors coming to us. And so that's not going to be an easy task to process those quickly and accurately. So part of the reason I think for using the other big funds, 100 million with tax, 74.2 million with Vita, is that they are establishing programs and using known comparators so that they can quickly process that. So we hope that by being able to go through those distinct applications, which won't be any different than ours. It'll just go to a different person who oversees it. We hope that that will cut down on bureaucratic delay and hope that we can get those payments promulgated as quickly as possible. Any projection of time or you haven't gotten that to that point yet? Well, we hope, you know, we hope, Senator, that within, you know, that we're planning on the proposed legislation that's first come, first served. So as soon as they're there and the demonstrated proof of economic harm is shown, then we want to issue payments. So we want, we'll do it on a rolling basis as they come in. And once they're complete, but we'd like to do it, you know, as quickly as possible. I hope you're faster than the UI stuff. Yeah, well, I don't think we're going to have those same numbers, I hope. Well, you're going from zero to 700. They went from 200 to 70,000 or whatever. Other questions for Hanson or Steve or Allison? So you don't know if it's going to start on the House side or the Senate side, right? Senator, I believe they were testifying in Senate economic development today. Commissioner Goldstein was in there today. So I think the bill, I think she was going through the bill. So I think it's, and I know they have a joint hearing tomorrow with commerce and the commerce side on the House side and also Senate economic development. So they are taking up the bill and it's one entire package, but it's ready to be distributed as my understanding. So we can get it to you. So we may not see the bill then, right? I think that's a discussion for the legislature. I mean, they may want to hand off that component to you. Well, yeah, I think it'd be kind of bad if the Commerce Committee on either side starts doing ag policy, but we'll deal with that. Bobby, I'm sure you can get the bill in this committee. We have faith in your, with your abilities. Well, I don't know about that, but being a total package, sometimes you're better off alone and sometimes you're better off, you know, teaming up with, but that's a good crew. We'll work with them somehow. So anything else from from the committee or Michael, or do you have any questions, Michael? I don't have any questions, but I'm about to send you a summary of the USDA CFAP rule. We were talking about it yesterday. I talked to Wendy Wilton at FSA. And I think you would want to look at this document to see some of the things that are going to be required to farmers or limitations on farmers. So I'll send that out in the next five, 10 minutes. Yeah, you're going to send it to all of us? Yep. Yeah, good. So if there isn't anything else, nothing. Brian, where have you been all morning? I'm gotten your haircut and you haven't asked any questions. I'm in a super listening mode, Mr. Chair. You're a good man. But anyhow, thanks a lot, Anson and Steve and Allison. Appreciate your time and your input. And we'll try to get hold of a copy of the draft proposal and work from there. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Bye-bye. Thank you all so much. Bye-bye.