 If you come for as much time as you can give us to help us understand all that's going on and particularly as it relates to the latest financial relief bill and what it means potentially to the state of Vermont. So with that, I don't know what screen I'm just going to put you on as the speaker and let you take it from here if you are ready to do that. Are you there? I'm here. Oh, great. Oh, there you are. Wonderful. Yeah. Thank you. So I'm going to let you, everybody wants to hear you, not me. So welcome, Peter, and I'm so glad to have you. Well, actually, I was not early when you were giving your intro and I want some of those cream puffs. OK, we could use some cream puffs down here. Yeah, that's for sure. Actually, the chair of our appropriations committee, what a wonderful rose of the world is a cream puff fan as well. So I'm going to pass that on. Senator Kitchell, thanks when I see Senator Allen this year, Senate President, first woman to run the Senate, you know, you've guys got a chance to get something done between the appropriations chair and the Senate president. All our money chairs are women. Well, I mean, that's in good hands. Yeah. That's that's pretty that's pretty good. Yes, Senator Cummings, my old chair, I see her right there. And of course, the mayor. You know, it's just so I'm stuttering around here because I'm so happy to see you. It's really, really wonderful to be with my old colleagues. That I said I've served 13 years in the State House. And honestly, when I think about my work here and the intimacy of the relationships in the State House, the fact that everybody has to do their own work, that you actually have to work it out with face to face or zoom to zoom interactions. There's an enormous benefit to that part as it is to be doing all that work. There's something that's very intimate, both in my memory of the interactions I had with many of you, as we try to work out the best path forward. And also just that connection you have with the voters that you represent. It's really, really extraordinary. And when you're in the midst, when you're in the midst of it in the Hurley Burley, sometimes it's easy to forget that. It's easier to remember who you're mad at for what they just did, but you're going to look back at this extraordinary time where you had to help guide Vermont through a once in a century event. And more work continues. This began a year ago. And I remember coming back to Vermont after we passed one of our first bills and the governor just declared the state of emergency. And I might have told the story before. It just showed we were in a different world. I was on my way out to Reagan National Airport to fly back to Vermont on the 10 o'clock flight. And I got a call in the car, it was American Airlines. This is when American Airlines used to fly three times a day back and forth between Burlington and Washington. The person said, Congressman Welcher, are you still planning on taking the plane to go into Burlington? And I said, well, yes, I'm on my way. And they said, well, as soon as you get here, we're ready to leave. I was the only person on that big plane. That's how much our economy just went into shock when the decision was made that the threat of this pandemic was so severe. And of course, that was a year ago. Now we're here today. And of course, we just passed the 500,000 mark of real people in Vermont and all around the country who died as a result of this. So it's been pretty devastating. And then of course, you guys have had to deal not just with the proper response in the health care element of this, it's really brutal. But just the economic pain and the anxiety that parents feel when they're worried about their kids, their health, worried about school, trying to get schools back open, trying to keep your downtowns and your community centers together. And Senator Westman trying to help with our farmers that are already laboring under incredibly low milk prices and have to deal with this. So there's an immense human factor here, not to mention exhaustion that all of us have, I think, of being just disrupted from our normal routine and our ability to interact with our friends and with our family. We just think about the thanksgivings and the Christmases and Hanukkah, all the holidays that we had, it's really taken a toll. And I'm saying this to you because I feel confident about how you all are doing your job. And what's so important about the job, we've got to get the policies right. We've got to get the resources back to the state. But there has to be a communication from political leaders of confidence, of directness, of steadfastness, and respect and empathy. Because each of us needs that. We need to convey it when we have a position of public trust so that we from honors have confidence in our institutions and have the capacity with solidarity to continue to get through this. So I just want to say that to you as a citizen of Vermont that I really respect and value the challenge that you're facing and how you're facing it. It really, really makes a difference. And you're going to look back at this extraordinary time where you can't be face to face. It's very frustrating. In a similar situation, most of our committee work is on the equivalent of Zoom. It's very frustrating to me that I can't interact with my colleagues. But it's the way we have to do it for now. Now, the good news is there's two pieces of good news. One is we've got the vaccine. And we didn't know we'd have it a year ago. I think Dr. Fauci was thinking maybe sometime this winter we'd get a vaccine and it's been accelerated. So that's really good news and you're getting distributed. So we know the end is in sight. The second, I think, piece of good news is that, in fact, there has been, at the federal level, a very substantial economic response that has been a lifeline to mitigate but not eliminate the incredible dislocation that we're experiencing in our economy. Saying that in a general sense is not to disregard the specific pain of people, the folks who run restaurants or a performance space like the Flynn or Catamount Arts, these organizations that are in our communities that are so essential to the well-being in the vitality of local life. So that's the, that's, but it's good news that we have had a federal response. And I think that in the CARES package, so far about four points, eight billion dollars has come to Vermont. Some that you've managed, some in the form of checks to individuals, some in the form of unemployment compensation, some in the form of the payroll protection plan that helps small businesses keep people on the payroll. That has really made a difference. Just think about where we would be if we hadn't had that help come back to Vermont. We in Washington, me, Patrick and Bernie have been advocating very adversely that the money that does come to Vermont, especially through the state, that you have a lot of flexibility. I really do believe on the basis of my experience sitting in your seats. During the 13 years I served in the state Senate, that the House, the Senate and the governor have a much better handle on how best to allocate those resources. So the flexibility that you've been advocating to me and to Bernie and Patrick that you have, we've been advocating here. The CARES package had less flexibility than we liked, but we in the last December package got the deadlines extended later than I would have liked because it already had to make decisions on the basis of the laws it was then. So that's just by way of introduction to what's up now. On Friday, I'm going to be voting here in the House on a $1.9 trillion supplemental package. And I think you probably from Joint Fiscal from Steve and Catherine and others have the outlines of that. So I won't go through it in super detail. But the bottom line here is that one, it's very significant, the amount of money, and that's based on the view of economists that our economy is very fragile and the future is uncertain. And it's better to err on the side of doing a little bit more than it is to err on the side of doing too little. And the rationale for that is that with the combination of vaccines, then the potential, the likelihood that when we get fully vaccinated, we get to herd immunity, the economy is in a position to have a self-sustaining recovery. But if as we're crossing that bridge on one side of the river now, walking across that bridge to the vaccine, we've got to have economic aid so we don't leave people and businesses behind when we get to a fully vaccinated country. We've got to continue to provide help to individuals. We've got to continue to provide help to states and localities, and we've got to continue to provide help to folks who've lost their jobs. 10 million are still lost or out of work from pre-pandemic levels. So this $1.9 trillion, the elements in it, as you know, are specifically directly for COVID for vaccine make certain that we get the vaccine vaccines to you and that the federal government, not the state government, pays the cost of that supplemental support for the efforts to do the mitigation, the contact tracing, the surveillance that's part of the public health response. There's money with individual checks. So for monitors, many will get $1,400 checks that will obviously be helpful to them in meeting their expenses. There's money in there to help reopen our schools. There's an expense associated with that. It's really, really tough to open schools because they've got to be open safely and that requires that the schools make some adjustments in the physical space. Sometimes it affects personnel. So there's money in there with the expectation that that'll be utilized to help get our schools open and open safely. I think we all want those schools open. The kids need it and the parents need it. In addition to that, we'll continue unemployment benefits for folks who are about to lose it on March 14th. And those are folks who really have been hit hard because they lost their job or they really lost a lot of hours. As a result of COVID. And we can't leave them high and dry. We have things in for rental assistance. And for my husband, doing a great job on that. And our hope is that there'll be maximum flexibility so that the way you can use that money is to best respond to the concrete needs of the monitors who are without income and can't pay their rent. A big provision in there that obviously is going to engage you for this session is the $960 million in aid that will come to Vermont in the House bill for state and local aid. This bill has under that bill, the state of Vermont would get about $600 million in our local communities, we get about $300 million. This legislation has a lot more flexibility than we have in the original CARES package with our municipalities. They'd have some flexibility to say partner with a local food shelf or with a local nonprofit to try to help the citizens in that community meet the needs that are defined. You know, I see Bob Helman here and I know how much you've been involved in local affairs and I know how much you believe in local control. Well, I think there'd be a lot of flexibility here with the money that goes to community for the local officials to make the decisions and also to partner with some local organizations that were trusted to help meet the needs of citizens. So I'm very strongly in favor of this legislation. And I see my job here and I think Bernie and Patrick agree that our job is to try to get the resources back to the people of Vermont and to the governor in general assembly of Vermont for you then to do that hard work of implementation in those micro decisions that are so essential to the wise in productive use of the funds that are going to come to help us get through COVID. So you have an incredible, incredible responsibility because this money becomes it's not for free. You know, at some point, this money's going to have to be repaid a decision. We've made a decision here that the circumstances require us to borrow it to mitigate the harm. But we're going to be successful based on the practical micro decisions that you make as a general assembly. Pardon me on how best to use this money. So I I'm going to stop here. But just tell you the timeline. We're voting on that in the House on Friday. Pardon my cough. We're voting on the House in Friday and then the Senate is going to begin their process and it's going to be that reconciliation process where it'll take basically 50 votes plus one year to get passed. And the goal is to have it done by March 14. So why don't I stop there, Madam Chair, and turn it back to you and open it up for questions. All right. Thank you. Please. I hope you're just need of water and that you're not coming down with something. We need you there in your vote. So March, March 14 is what you think some of those cream puffs. I know I would I would bring them to you directly, but I might have to arrange with Senator Starr's trucking company to get them to you. So I am going to have to have people put their hands up so I can see on the bar if who would like to ask the first question. Why don't I give the committee chairs the opportunity? So Senator Cummings, and then if you have a question and then I'll move to Senator to Representative Ansel and Representative Hooper, and then we'll open it up to I see we have Senator Pearson has a hand up. And so Senator Cummings, do you have a question at this point? Or if not, we'll move on. No, I'm fine for now. I'm still in listening mode. All right. Thank you. Representative Ansel, thank you. So my only question has to do with the money that's going to county government and what kind of flexibility is there in the act currently and is it possible for us to be able to since we don't really have a much of a county government in Vermont? If there's how or what you would suggest to us. Well, Janet, that's been an issue down here that we've been trying to work out. A lot of the New England states don't have much of a county government. So but a lot of the rest of the country does. And what we're trying to have is basically a formula where it'll get down to our municipalities into our smallest towns. And that's got to be part that we believe that's got to be part of the distribution formula so that it will be determined in advance. The flexibility, I think right now is quite substantial. You know, we have different situations for different towns. Sometimes I've had greater expenses associated with COVID than others. And the money is supposed to be spent for COVID related expenses. But I had mentioned early on, I think one of the things that will be flexible. I mean, let's say Bob Helm in his town. They could partner with a local food show or a local organization that is doing something, providing some services to folks who were adversely impacted by by COVID. So the flexibility extends not just to how you use the money. It is supposed to be COVID related. But how you partner with others that are assisting many of our small towns and don't have an infrastructure to set up for the distribution of funds. OK, I'm going to move on then. Representative Hooper. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Welch, for for all that you are doing for us. It has already made a tremendous difference. The flexibility is particularly important. So thank you for focusing on that. I am curious about the focus, not just on responding to COVID or the pandemic, but I hope that there will be room for how we move out of the pandemic and to be able to make investments that help us recover more fully from this and help us recover in kind of the new Vermont, as opposed to the old way that we used to do business. And you know, first of all, congratulations on assuming the chair position. There's two things. All right. Number one, the COVID packages are really intended to help cope with COVID. And the consequences of COVID are health, but also economic. So the money is supposed to be related to COVID expenses. And as I mentioned, that can be somewhat broadly defined, but it should be COVID related. And, you know, all of us in Vermont have seen how extensive the COVID impacts are. But this is not an alternative for, say, an infrastructure plan or an education bill that we might be considering things that would be necessary for us to do, independent of COVID. So that, I think, is the broad parameter. And obviously there's going to be a lot of gray area and there has to be judgment used. But the bottom line here is this is where I think you all have enormous responsibility to Vermont, because are you going to do things that can be durable? You know, what decisions do you make? Is it going to just be short term or longer term? And how you do that in a way that responds to COVID, but also has a benefit beyond COVID? And this is why I am so much in favor of flexibility, is that you can make those decisions better than Patrick, me and Bernie down here. Okay, that really is your job. So I'm doing all I can to get the maximum flexibility, but it's not flexibility that allows you to do anything you feel like. All right, it's got to be your good judgment applied to how you're addressing the COVID related impacts and do it in a way that provides the maximum longer term benefit for Vermonters. That's our challenge. I have Senator Pearson, followed by Representative Feltas, and then Senator Brock. So Senator Pearson, you're next. Thank you, Congressman. Nice to see you and. Hi, Chris. I'll need to heap praise on you, but I think I hope you already know the first recovery bill has made a world of difference and really kept us going and kept state revenue going in a very, very important way. As you talk about the next bill, we've also heard that money would be coming directly to schools. And I wonder if you have any details to share there. Is it is that part of the local money that you described or the state money or is that something separate coming down the pike at another time? Because you know, and I would also just add, I guess it is COVID related, but helping our schools and our students recover from the myriad of challenges that the pandemic's brought is not a one time thing. So I'd love I'd love to understand any details you have and could comment on. Well, there is there is money in here to help reopen schools. Okay, so there'll be some flexibility on that. I'm not quite sure how that gets distributed, whether it goes through the legislature, it goes directly to schools, but I think I think you're going to have a role in that. But there is there's a recognition that if we're going to open schools and we're going to do it safely, it's going to there's going to be expenses associated with that. You know, I went to Manuski when they were, I just saw how extensive the changes they had to make. They had personnel outside, people taking temperatures. They had to have a lot of spacing within their classes. They had students separated much more. They had to have more room and you could see there was a greater demand on personnel and a lot of those things. The practical implementation is such a challenge, you know, and that's in addition to dealing with the concerns parents have, like my kids get sick, well, they can bring home the virus. It's the in addition to certain teachers have about their own safety. So there are expenses, but I think it's money that's going to go through the legislature, but it's definitely included in this package to help us be expenses associated with COVID. Okay, thank you. Representative Feltas. Yes, thank you very much, Congressman, for being here and for all of the help you've given us in the past. We all have worked very hard on the two bills that we've received so far trying to be as flexible and as strategic as we can. And I appreciate that this new batch of aid, as you say, needs to be related to COVID expenses. And I think we all have lots of places where we think that can be appropriately applied. I wonder however if you can comment on the likelihood that we have heard that there might be a piece in this bill that would have a much broader impact in terms of raising them in minimum wage universally across the country. That obviously it has a much broader impact rather than just direct support or just direct recovery from the pandemic. Can you give us an idea of how likely you think that might be? Well, I expected that will be included in the House bill. So I think it will be part of what I vote on and I will vote for that on Friday. In the Senate, as you know, they're talking over there about a so-called reconciliation process. Now we're getting into legislative arcana with a bunch of geeky legislators. Second reading, third reading, motion to recommit, all that stuff. So in the Senate, the filibuster means you've got to get a supermajority to get anything done away around that procedurally as you have used the reconciliation process, then it's 50 votes plus one. And in the Senate, the parliamentarian who used to work for Senator Leahy, she's the parliamentarian, but she is going to have to make a decision as to whether including the minimum wage is in violation or in compliance with the verbal whatever that is. All right. So I'll come on certain. I think the minimum wage will be included in the House bill. In the Senate bill, it's very divisive. Democrats in the Senate support the minimum wage by and large, although Joe Manchin doesn't. And any one of them can, the Republicans oppose it. And we don't know what the parliamentarian has to say. So I can't predict that outcome. Thank you. I was just curious. And I know that there's a phase in, but that's a level of detail that we can look at later. It is a five year phase in. No, keep in mind, it's like when we did it in Vermont, there was a phase in, of course, the minimum wage. This is actually the last time, I don't know if it was the last time, but when I was there with Governor Douglas, we put in a class living adjustment as well. So, you know, you've got this absurd situation federally, where in effect, we really don't have a minimum wage, minimum wage is $7 and 25 cents. That's $14,000 a year for somebody working full time. We just don't have a minimum wage. So what it should be, and how it should be phased in, and what its impact is on some of our businesses, those are things that we always had to debate and appeal here when we were considering the minimum wage increase. But down here, we haven't had that debate for over a decade. So we've essentially abandoned any commitment to a federal minimum wage. But though it is a five year phase in on Jane. We have Senator Brock and then Representative Harrison after that. So Senator Brock. Great. Well, thank you again very, very much. Share my colleagues enthusiasm with your being here today and with the help that you've been to us throughout this process. As you know, one of the things that we've learned from the COVID epidemic is the importance of communications and particularly telecommunications. The presence of it has helped the absence of it has not. And we have this tendency of almost becoming two Vermont's one rural and one urban. With the funds that we've gotten from the CARES Act, one of the biggest problems has been the scripture in terms of having to essentially spend the money and spend it now, as opposed to doing things that are more long term in nature. And as a result, it's limited what we could do. Do you have any hope that in the current bills that there would be more of a long term focus to help us do things that are good for fixing the problems we've had with COVID, but also have a longer, a longer life and also to be able to use funds that can be leveraged rather than simply spending them outright that could be leverage and providing either guarantees, building up reserves or reserve funds for organizations like Vita to use or in subordinated debt or other almost semi equity positions that could be leveraged with the private sector so that we can take the government money we have and use it more effectively and with more of a long term view in mind. Do you have any thoughts on that? Well, I do, Brandy. Thank you for that. My preference is that you get as much flexibility as possible. This bill is going to have much more flexibility than was in the CARES Act. But the flexibility still has some constraints in that it's about COVID. Now, there's a lot of gray area because, for instance, you mentioned broadband. We have to have broadband, okay? And we need it now so people can get health care so they can go to school and so people can work, right? And the two remarks you're talking about where some have broadband and some don't, we need it now. Now, if we use COVID money to help on broadband, that's not going to just have a benefit right now. That's going to have a benefit for the long term. So that's an area where I could see the broadband money that's in there is focused mainly on schools and hotspots as being beneficial to deal with COVID but also being beneficial to Vermont into a stronger community. So you're going to be wrestling with some of that because there's gray area but much more flexibility than we've had in the past. On the other hand, my expectation is after we do this COVID bill, we're going to get into an infrastructure bill. And I know all of you know that we really need to do something about our infrastructure and the states need some federal help. And that's been a bipartisan point of view for a long time. And part of an infrastructure bill has to be the commitment to wiring, getting high-speed internet throughout America. And my view, and this has become much more bipartisan since COVID, is that we've got to have really high-quality, high-speed internet in rural areas. And we've got a future proof. We don't want to give second string internet to rural areas because it's better than what they have only to see the technology leap ahead. But for rural areas to be stagnant. So I do think there's going to be, on this question of internet, there's going to be another bill that is not COVID related, it's internet related, and I hope will be extremely ambitious. Now, this question of the public-private partnerships, I always think it makes sense to be trying to figure out how do you best leverage the resources you have. And this is, again, you know, you have some things in mind, perhaps, but we certainly don't have them in mind here about how that would work in Franklin County. You know, what could you do combining local initiative with some federal money? But my preference would be to give you as much flexibility to be creative on that as possible. Bottom line here is you've got to have accountability. You can't be wasting money, and there's a huge risk of some fraud. In Southern California, a lot of money being stolen out of some of the unemployment system. You know, we don't have that big a problem in Vermont. But as long as we have accountability, the purpose has to be to help you deal with COVID. And if you can do it in a way that is going to provide some long-term benefit, great. That's fantastic. We have Representative Harrison next. You there, Jim? Thank you. Yes, I'm here. Congressman, it's good to see you again. I have a similar question that Senator Brock had, not on broadband, which is certainly very important, but we all became painfully aware, and our constituents became even more painfully aware that we have a legacy computer system for our unemployment. And we could, you know, certainly COVID-related. It's the economic well-being of many, many Vermonters depend on that. And when the system can't handle the additional traffic, a lot of people suffer or wait. And, you know, so we could all argue that it's COVID-related. However, to fix it and invest in a new system, you know, it takes several years. So, you know, it would be, we would be looking in the rear-view mirror, hopefully, on the pandemic. But we fix it for the next issue and certainly day-to-day. Any idea or guidance as to whether or not that kind of investment would be applicable to the funds, federal funds in the current stimulus bill? Jim, I don't know the answer to that. What I do know is that the computer system we have in Vermont and just how antiquated it is, that's replicated all across the country. You know, our unemployment system is ancient. It just doesn't deal with sort of modern employment patterns, including part-time work, contingent labor, gig economy, all of these things that really are part of the economic reality. The unemployment system, not just the infrastructure of this computer system, but the eligibility criteria and so on all have to be revamped. And there's an effort down here to really try to do that. You know, in the unemployment benefits really widely vary from state to state. That's one question. The other thing is that pre-pandemic, if you were a self-employed person or a gig economy or you were from a minor who plowed driveways in the winter and did landscaping in the summer, you lost all your income. You weren't eligible for unemployment. You just couldn't get it. So we need to build the computer infrastructure and I support that, whether we can, you can use the money that comes to the state to do that. I don't know, but it'd be from my perspective of a wise use of some funds. But if it's not then, then that's a looming issue where we have to help the states out with modernizing the infrastructure. I mean, by the way, I just want to say this, it was so heartbreaking for me, and I know for you, when we passed this legislation, this was early on in the pandemic, with that $600 supplement, it really made a difference for people. I know some employers had some issues with that, but we passed it, and then people were wondering where it is, and they didn't get the check, and they needed it. They hadn't went through, and that's so frustrating as a legislator to pass on legislation, and then it gets held up for like bureaucratic reasons and people are counting on it, and it erodes people's confidence in their government. So we've got to fix that. I'm with you on that. I have a question from Representative Yacoboni. David. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. You may have addressed this, and if you did, I apologize. Do you anticipate there will be a date certain by which money to states and localities might have to be spent? I'm not seeing that right now. We had that in the CARES package, and then we amended it in the December bill, and that was my legislation, along with some others that did that. This legislation has given me much more flexibility. So the constraint is it's got to be COVID-related in a flexible way, but I don't think we have the time certain where you've got to spend the money. It doesn't make sense to spend it because there's an artificial deadline looming, but in fact you might get a lot more bang for your buck if you decide to do it in next March instead of next October. Thank you. Let's hope it stays that way. Other questions? All right, Senator Starr, and then Senator Pearson is again, I think, after you. Thanks, Peter, for being with us today. Certainly appreciate it. I'm wondering, as you know, I've worked many years on ag issues, local foods, promoting all of that. Do you think the money that's coming to the schools, say, would help in the food part of the school business, say with universal meals, buying local? And I don't know if you've heard this yet, but we have in Vermont dropped under 600 dairy farms. So we're getting there's more land being opened up where we could grow more food and crops. And I'm wondering if the state money is coming just in general money to us, or is it going to get some divided up like schools, state government, including all the departments? Or will there be some Pacific for certain businesses like ag? Bobby, this is where, first of all, I'm really sad about the bridge fire, the beautiful bridge in Troy. Really sorry. It was a sad day. Oh my god, it was. I think I crossed that a few times with Uncle Jack. There's significant food assistance in here. And you guys know that a lot of Vermonters are hungry. And it's invisible. It's really heartbreaking. Many of you have probably been to some food distribution sites, where the lines are incredibly long. People showing up who've never had to go to get help with food before. So there's money in this to provide further food assistance. There's not specific money for the farms, but the flexibility that you had, I know you included some money for for our farms out of the allocation that went to the state before. So I think you'd be able to do that again. The topic you're talking about, Bobby, how do we revitalize our ag economy, obviously, is crucial now with further relentless pressure on our dairy farms. So I want to say thank you. Jane, I'm going to, they call votes and we do our votes in a rolling routine, socially distanced down here. So Mike, I'm W. So I'm at the end, but we're getting towards the end. Okay, I'm going to ask Senator Bray. You have one quick question and then we will let you get, we don't want you to miss your vote, obviously. If you have to leave, you have to leave. So Senator Bray. Sure. I'll jump right in. Good afternoon, Peter. Great to see you. Thanks for all your help. We've talked about, and I think you have as well, the whole notion that pandemic revealed a lot of strains that were already inherent in the system, but maybe masked until the pandemic showed them to us all more clearly. One of those things is energy burden and energy poverty. And we're really looking in Vermont to build stronger programs to address climate change and the costs associated with energy. So I know that there's been a lot of discussion around things like a green new deal. I don't know if you can say anything briefly about what the opportunities for Vermont might be to make progress working with the delegation in your office. Well, it's, that's obviously incredibly important question. And I think if we do it right, provide some economic opportunity as well as environmental benefit. But the COVID package is not focused on that. Some of that money may be available to help retrofit schools. It may be things that could result in efficiency, more efficient buildings. It's really part of how we're going to get greenhouses down. And I think I recall that some of the money, I guess you've got a budget item that is going to increase weatherization funds significantly. But I don't think that this COVID package will be addressing those very, very important concerns directly. So I do apologize that I've got to go across the street. Now, please, please, we appreciate your time. And thank you for being with us today, Peter. It's always good to hear from you. And we're, we're, we are available like whenever you want us. Okay, because you have the hard work, the decisions you make are going to be felt by Vermonters for a generation or more. And you're doing it under very difficult circumstances. So to the extent I can never be minimally helpful, we're here. And, you know, I'm on the clock now. So this is not in a position. All right. Thank you guys. Thank you, Congress. Bye-bye.