So, the morning committee and our guests, it's Wednesday, February 1st, it's back in February, all Hawthorne Knights up for those year-old are very encouraging. So this morning, we're fortunate to have representatives from our congressional delegation, and so they can meet us and we can meet them. It's always been a pleasure working with our federal delegation over the years. Well, we got a little different crew about the different talks, so it's great to have you folks with us this morning, and we'll start off this morning introducing ourselves, and then we'll have you folks introduce yourselves and go from there. Brian Cole, we're representing the Rutland District. Irene Renner, Chittenden North, including Fairfax. Brian Campion, Bennington County, Blomack County. I'm Rich Weston-Land. And Bobby Starr up in Orleans County, in Fort Towns in Calhoun, in Calhoun, so welcome, and the, I don't know if there's any particular order that we'll run in, but I would expect we'll start with Will, representing our most senior senator in Washington. And it's just a give and take type of meeting, our main meeting to get to put a face with the names, and so, Will, I don't know if you want to sit right up at the table. As well, thank you, Senator. Yeah, morning, and welcome. Well, thank you. It was five when I left this morning and minus five and mucked in, and it got a little bit warmer and mucked earlier, so quick to ride. It's heating up. Yeah, we're hopeful. It'll cross a 20 degree mark by noon right here. Yeah, so yeah, so my name's Will Stevens. I'm an outreach representative for Senator Sanders. I've been with a senator for about just over a year now, and as outreach representative, I cover agriculture, forestry, small business, economic development, workforce development, hunger and nutrition issues, and now pensions as well. So I'll get into that in a second. Yeah, so as I said, I live in Shorham. My wife and I ran a commercial organic vegetable farm for 40 years, and we're now in the process of transitioning that over to our daughter. And she took it on last year for her first year, which freed me up to do something different, and that's essentially how I landed in this job with a senator. And I was also, for those who don't know, I was also in the legislature from 2007 to 2014 representing the towns of Shorham, Orwell, Whiting, and Benson. I'm that long, oh, macro. Time-wise. Time-wise, yeah. Holy macro. So, there are days I miss it. So, yeah, we'll leave it at that. So, yeah, so I guess the big news from our office is that the senator has moved from chairing the budget committee to chairing the health, education, labor, and pensions committee, which he's very excited about. And after they were sworn in at the beginning of January, they then went on recess, and so they've only been back in session for a couple of weeks. So they're really just kind of getting the chairs moved around and organized and so forth, and now they're getting down to business. As you can imagine, he's looking forward to fighting big pharma, advocating for minimum wage and better access to primary healthcare and many other things using that chairmanship of that committee to advocate for many of his causes. What does the health committee do? Health, it oversees the Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA, and all those related things. Education, jurisdiction over issues related to education, workforce development, things like that. Labor, most federal labor and employment laws, and pension, private retirement plans, and railroad retirement, and other types of things. And I ended up covering pension because there was no one else on the outreach team that was gonna do it. And so because we have exposure on the health committee, we needed a pension person on the outreach. And in the way Senator Sanders organizes his office is he has teams of, he has a six person outreach team. And our job is to be his eyes and ears in the community and the issue areas that we cover. He also has a case work team which is separate from that. So the outreach team does a little bit of case work, very little bit, but mostly we're meant to be going around the state listening and talking to the monitors to see what's important. So he also, Senator Sanders also continues to serve on the budget, Veterans Affairs, Energy and Natural Resources and the Environment and Public Works committees. He's been on those right along and continues there. He continues, he will continue to work in support of Vermont's family farms, diversified agriculture, and nutritious access to nutritious food for all of our monitors, of course.  So he's looking for ways to address that as well. The farm bills coming up, I'll defer to Ryan on some of that. In our shop that had begun, we did a couple of listening sessions last November to start kind of kicking off our efforts in terms of bringing the center up to speed of issues of importance in the 12 titles of the farm bill. And also I want to mention two things. One, CDS's or earmarks. We're not sure if they're gonna be back for fiscal year 24. We're still waiting for that. I do want to mention a couple of earmark projects that our office is involved with that are relevant to this committee. One is an agriforestry product project that Megan Giroux from the Interlaced Commons is working on with a number of farms around the state to implement agriforestry practices on farms. And another one is for fiscal year 23 has to do with the Center for Ag Economy Farm Connects program, their distribution delivery system that helps integrate food hubs and farms and markets. So we support that with a CDS and John Ramsey up there has done great work. We had John in last week and I'm telling you this, quite a combination of many things that they do. Absolutely. Distributing, picking up, packaging and processing. I mean, it's really wild. Yeah, and it's supposed to be profitable. I mean, it's in about a year's time, I think he told us. So this earmark is gonna help him on that path. Another thing I want to bring up and again, we can talk about it more later, but I just want to kind of fit it on the table is we were invited down to a USDA event sponsored by Senator Welch down at the course farm the other day to talk about the USDA's rollout of the Strengthening Organic Enforcement Rule and the Organic Dairy Marketing Program to help organic dairy farmers. In the lead up to that last year, I contacted, I was in touch with probably about a quarter of Vermont's organic dairies to hear their stories and to find out what their ask might be if they had the opportunity to, if we had the opportunity let's say to come up with some emergency relief funds in the last year's omnibus bill. And that didn't happen, but what the number, the number I heard was between $6 and $8 a hundred to be made whole in for 2022 was what they were looking for. Dependent on the operation, the debt load and practices and management and all that stuff, but the average seemed to be about $6 to $8 per hundred way they were that much shy of needing to break even. So again, I don't want to steal Ryan's thunder but the organic dairy proposal that came through the USDA through the CCC is coming up with about a hundred million to address that, which by my backing out little calculations comes out to, in the best case scenario, maybe $2 a hundred. Nationwide for the organic. Under five million pounds for the organic dairy. So I did get cat belt then. Okay. Yeah, was there any talk about fixing the issue of why they're running so far behind on per hundred late basis and trying to resolve that problem? Not addressed through this proposal, but it's definitely on our screen. It's, and I'm happy to talk about that, but I also want to give equal time to other and maybe we could all be part of that. Yeah, we can do a round room discussion. Yeah, but I'd love to pick that conversation up. Yeah. So. Yeah, any questions for Will? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Ryan. Thank you, Will. Hello, Cindy. How are you, Ryan? Good. Good. Good seeing you. Great. Further record, I'm Ryan McLaren. I'm a senior advisor to now Senator Welch and I've been doing Zag portfolio for the whole time I've been with him. So better part, eight years. I'm the old guy in the bunch, I guess to this point. Now that Tom Berry's moved on. Hi, Tom. Anyway, so Peter sworn in as our junior senator, January 3rd, and we've sort of hit the ground running. We finally got our committee assignments last week. Peter will be appointed to the agriculture committee, which is a really, he's really excited about, I'm really excited about selfishly, gets to do a lot of good work, but for my farmers still. And he'll also be on a commerce committee, which has a lot of jurisdiction over, has a wide-ranging jurisdiction over intellectual property, a lot of transportation issues. He'll be on judiciary, the judiciary committee, and he'll be on the rules committee. So I think agriculture is probably chief among the interests for you all. And as Will suggested, we have a farm bill reauthorization that's coming up this year. It's 12 titles of the farm bill that cover many, many, many things. And I'm sort of happy to go into those in more detail if that's useful for you all. If not, then stop me. But the biggest chunk of money in the farm bill is the nutrition program, so SNAP benefits, something that obviously, as the pandemic finds down, is a topic of conversation here. And we have wonderful service providers in Vermont that are doing excellent work on making sure people don't feel hungry. And we partner closely with them to make sure that what works in Vermont is allowable, essentially, through these federal programs that can be somewhat inflexible. So we'll hopefully be able to do some good work there. The Commodities program, title, title one, is Commodities Dairy, essentially, and for Vermonters, Dairy's the big one, but it also covers soy, rice, peanuts. Any discussion on universal meals for schools? Senator Lady, or Senator Sanders, excuse me, is a lead sponsor of a universal school meals bill. Peter was a co-sponsor in the House. I don't know if there's one, if it's been re-up this Congress, but I'm sure it will be in, so there will be a discussion about it. We'll talk about that then in general. Yeah, conservation through NRCS will be another deep conversation in one of Peter's priorities. How do we use the farm bill and our farmers who are stewards of land to address climate change and to ensure that farmers are rewarded for the good work that they do to preserve our climate and preserve our land, preserve the soil. Trade is title three. It's another important title, particularly for our dairy industry where a good proportion of what we are producing, the milk we're producing is getting exported. Nutrition, I mentioned. Credit, so the farm credit programs is title five, title six is rural development. So USDA rural development, if you is an important partner for us and a lot of communities across the state in terms of grant funding or low-interest loans, they also have housing, low-interest housing, mortgages and rural communities. So there's a lot of opportunity there. Actually, the new school in Winooski was funded in large part through USDA rural development and they took good advantage of those programs. Research and extension, so UVM extension is funded through title seven and they do incredible work. I'm sure you will hear from them over and over again. But, you know, are constantly in need of support for the research that they're doing. And a lot of the more innovative things that are happening in Vermont agriculture are a result of research projects that Heather Darby's doing or if they just provide a bottomless resource for Vermont farmers. If I had the director of the extension service in a week or two of all of this, it seems like they're right on top of things. They really are. They're doing research and outreach and walking with Maple. Yeah. So they're doing well. Yeah, yeah. And yeah, the Maple Research Center is funded through extension, but it's also funded through, I think, horticulture grants through the Acer Access Grant Program. So a lot of federal funding has gone into supporting that program. It's kind of unique in one of a kind in the United States. The only one we had problems with is the Morgan question. And we're trying to double their appropriations from the state from $1 to $2. Two. But it was, I mean, he gave a good report on what's going on there. Yeah. But I don't know if they run with federal money or just money from the university. We have a very, very long line. We just keep that line open. Right. I'm not sure exactly how much federal funding they would get. Title eight is forestry. So obviously an important industry here in Vermont. Nye's Energy encourages the development of farm community and renewable energy. Horticulture, I mentioned, that's where all the organic programs are housed, especially crop block grants, which are sort of small niche producers have used. Things like Saffron, we have a Saffron conference and a lot of that industry is supported that way. Title 11 is crop insurance. And then there's the miscellaneous, Title 12. So that's just a big picture overview. It's a giant, omnibus package for theoretically reauthorized every five years. And Peter's excited to be able to dig in, you know, the way Senator Leahy was able to. No one can replace Senator Leahy, but it's great for Vermont farmers that we have a voice on that committee, I think. So his big priorities for the Farm Bill are gonna be dairy. We've had some success in the conventional market, both in they're getting good price at this moment and the dairy margin coverage program, the margin, you know, insurance program that UST created in 2018 Farm Bill. We worked out the tweaks to a certain degree and it seems to be functioning relatively well for folks. There's still some, there are more tweaks to be made, but it feels like the industry's not interested in scrapping the entire program, which is great. There was a time when it went by a different name that it was thought to be hopelessly, they're useless essentially. And we've done a lot of good work to make sure that the margins are right and the price point for the insurance is right that it actually makes a difference for farmers. We, as you know, I would presume that we, we last year, we picked up the insurance premium for our local cause and we're working on doing the same thing this year. The big issue with the DMC program and it works great. But the issue is that we've got that 139 finance organic that aren't in really in the next set. And that's why, you know, they're losing so much money. But we did, you know, we did film a few million dollars even less last year, came into the state, but the year before that, I mean, $55, $60 million that was paid to our farmers. It really made a difference where they could keep going or come down here and try to get money out of us. Right. So it works good as a national. Right. Yeah, I think folks would prefer not to need it. You know, I'd rather be in a situation they are now or the margin on their milk is good enough where they're making money and they can support themselves in the business. But yeah, last year's a good example. And when we needed it, it actually helps. And so to your point about organic, that's number two priority. And this is not in any particular order, but the second one I want to touch on is the organic program. Yeah. Peter's in it. We'll have his first ag committee hearing today and Secretary Moffitt who came up to the course farm last Friday will be testifying. And this is a conversation they had last week. It's a conversation. It's something he's planning on asking her about today to see just to keep pressing on the fact that we don't have insurance program for organic dairy. We've never really needed one. And we're in a sort of unprecedented time when the market conditions that have impacted conventional for so long is hitting the organic market. So it's something we'll keep having conversation about and pushing on. And as we move forward for the farm bill and then the other part of organics is just like program integrity, you know, the organic program was started by Senator Leahy. It was in Vermont, organic farmers, you know, was sort of the backbone of what that program became when people buy organic products in the supermarket. They like see the course farm. That's what they envisioned. And the market isn't that anymore. And so it's, there's been a lot of damage to the brand of organic and to the usefulness of the certification through the like lax program integrity, frankly, from the national organic program. So Peter's been doing this for a long time, but ensuring that when people that buy an organic product, the image they have in their head manages reality that it's like a farm that is like family run, it stewards of the land and isn't just there to make a buck. And that's something, you know, they're trading off the backs of like for modern organic farmers that build the program and created that entire brand. So the brand integrity organic is important. And so we'll keep working with Secretary Moffitt and on these new enforcement rules. It's the biggest overhaul ever. And yeah, to make sure that they do hold people accountable, but don't make it so burdensome that a small like mixed vegetable farm in Vermont can't meet their requirements. It's just like a bureaucratic burden. So there's a balancing act there, but. I think Peter will do well on the ag commedia. He way back, he helped when he was here in the Senate I made quite a few trips with me to do the dairy compact. Yeah. And so I had her certainly understands the issue right then the problems right. Yeah, those were the days back in the dairy compact days. All right, good to see you. Thanks for being here. Yeah. Regenerative soils. Is that coming up at all? I know this committee's talked a little bit about regenerative soils over the years and sequestering, carbon, huge opportunities there. I know you touched on it a little bit early on just how do we reward farmers in part for doing this good work? Is there a bill or anything that's happening? Well, the farm bill will be a huge vehicle. I mean, so much of what we can pay it. Like we give out a ton of money through NRCS for promoting specific practices. And so you both are sort of like keep leading me into my next point. But climate change is using the farm bill to address climate change through whether you call it payment for ecosystem services. I know there's a working group in Vermont that's happening right now, but it would be a huge missed opportunity to not help our climate goals through the farm bill because there's so much money going out the door to people doing work on the ground. And so it'll be a puzzle to figure out how best to do that. And some of it might just be allowing some flexibility within like the conservation programs. NRCS does amazing work and sometimes that work is like constrained by the sort of conventional thinking of USDA. And so allowing folks in Vermont to use those dollars to like to meet those goals is a different way of thinking than it has been in the past. It's been like purely runoff based or, you know, and so it's a different metric, but it's an important one for Peter as we build these programs. In Vermont, the required agriculture, yeah, that incorporates all these projects and programs that NRCS promotes and if you don't meet the required ag practices, it's because you weren't following what the, you know, the NRCS is promoting and doing. Soil, soil health with Canada Geigen and then soil health was a big issue with them. And I don't think we've had NRCS in yet, but we will get them in once we get our air and stuff. So you can do it. If Leon at the course of our resin cloud has fielded in 40 years. Yeah, there's some water. Yeah. Yeah. And they're successful. The field in the back of my house or the field that my house is built on, it hasn't been plowed in 50 years or more. And it wasn't because it needed plowing or it didn't need plowing. Because if you turn a saw over there, you walk through once with a plow you're two days picking the stones. So it's pretty important to keep that real healthy. Right. Well, we put corn there once and that was a busy summer. And then I'll just wrap up quickly because I'm taking too much of your time, but the last two priorities that Peter's talked about is the nutrition programs that are essential for monitors. And essentially, like I said, the most expensive portion of the entire farm bill and the farm to school programs that Peter and Senator Lee have worked hard on for a long time. And we've been really successful. Peter was up at the St. Alden City School and we had lunch there and it is incredible the work they do with the meals they make. It's different than my old school lunch and there's a lot more we can do to make food service providers' lives easier and the connection between farmers and those institutions more seamless. There's a lot of rules. And that's all, so that's the farm bill and Peter's priorities. I will caution, like last time we did this, instead of a five year farm bill, it became a seven and a half year farm bill. We reauthorized it like short term a few times and that's very possible. So none of these things are like necessarily overnight. Maybe you never know, we might, lighting might strike and we can get something done by the deadline of this farm bill, but there's plenty of possibilities for it to be, these changes to come into effect a year, two years down the line as we work to put this new Congress together and actually get the work done. So it's really a TBD on the timeline. We'll have to do something this year, whether it's just reauthorizing what we're doing now till we find a different, until we write a different bill, I don't know. Does that, does that what, why you couldn't be getting a new bill? I don't know the answer to that. That's kinda, it's like, it's too soon to tell, I guess. I'll have more, I'll have a better feeling for it than Peter will as we start getting into the work. Thank you Mr. Chair. Are there other New England senators on the item? That's a really good question. I'll have to go back and look. It's new to me as well, so I'm not sure. I think, I don't think so. At least there weren't, which is why half the reason why. Is Jill Grant, Jill Grant and Booker, and Fireman. Yeah, yeah, so. Yeah, she's good at the work, don't you think? Yeah. I'm sorry. That's fine. Oh, thank you. That's the answer. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That sounds good, we're here. Yeah, well, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, good to be here. For the record, David Chair, State Director for Representative Beckabella, and some of you have seen me around the building in other capacities in the past, as some of you know, with the Attorney General's Office for a number of years, and was just at the Cannabis Control Board for a couple of years, and now I'm working for the Congresswoman. Great, it's been great. Our office is very much still in startup mode. The U.S. House gave us working computers last week. So, we are, we're doing the best we can. But. Yeah, it'll be all downhill. Yeah. You know what, it's the test, it's quite true. Being reachable is a challenge, but the, you know, so that's a little bit about my background, and we are still getting up to speed. The folks who are, I end to be perfectly transparent, as some of you know, agriculture is not my area of expertise, so I apologize that we weren't able to bring the folks here due to some conflicts, personal conflicts they had. So, but I do want to say a couple things, and the folks who I'm here with are far more expert than I am, so I want to leave most of the time for them to be able to talk with you. But a couple things to note, some of which I think is obvious, which is that, you know, the party is in a different position in the House than in the U.S. House than it is in the U.S. Senate, and so the representative is really thinking about some of the areas where she's going to have to play defense on some key issues, and I think some of the things they've identified as being areas of concern for them, areas that are most likely to be attacked, if you will, are the nutrition benefits, which is a huge area to build, SNAP benefits they are expecting the attempts to cut those significantly in the House, and some of the rural development money they're also concerned about, although they're a little more hopeful that they're hopeful that they can defend both, but as in the rural development money, it's a little easier to find alliances across the aisle because there's so many folks on the other side of the aisle who share some real strong interests in protecting that money, and the SNAP benefits tend to be a bit more of a political football. But those are two areas that the Congresswoman's office has identified as areas they're going to need to focus on, not because the other areas of the farm bill aren't important, but because they recognize the position they're in, and will certainly work with the senators from Vermont, they, I think, will be much better positions to do really affirmative forward-looking policy, and Congresswoman Ballin will be in a position to try to defend what they do in the House and play some defense on those other key areas. She's got years of catching up to do that. Yeah. Senority wise to go. Yeah. Peter been there a long time. They really have. Y'all, people say, well, we should have term limits and all that good stuff, but it kind of pays to have a little seniority at times. It certainly does. But, of course, we, well, I really didn't work with Tecca much, just maybe, but the rest of us worked with New Auckland, Tecca, and really good to get along with and quick study, and just a all-around good, good person. And that means quite a bit when you're dealing with the majority, and you've got to deal with the majority to have an attitude like she has to make that all blend together. I appreciate that, Senator. I think that's right. And I think she's already working to build some of those relationships. And following the examples of our prior to Congress, people who are represented here as well. Yeah. And how they were, exactly. And they found different ways to be effective, and she's studying a bit of their example, too, and how she can figure out ways to be effective in the House. And I think you're exactly right. She's got a natural skill for building those relationships that she's already doing that. Yeah, I know in the Senate, well, I have two minority members in here, but I always felt that you folks, in the minority party, were treated really no different than those of us in the majority party. And yeah, politics is, it's strange, some of them. That sounds like a good way to put it. I feel like I came in together, to be down there, but as Senator, as a matter of fact, you did too, right? We were the three new guys, gals, that year. Woo. And I think it's a testament to her personality that's true. She grows very quickly here, and it won't take her long, yeah, yeah. So you know what he's saying, we expect great things. I hear the subtext, too. She's gonna work hard, I know that. Oh, yeah, yeah. Other questions or comments? Well, why don't we open the door to everyone and we'll just have a little round discussion. Could I pick up where Senator Campion kind of was leading with a regent? I can never pronounce the word, they didn't come up with another term, a regenerative agriculture? Yeah, yeah. I was just at a meeting last night of the Champlain Valley Farmers Coalition down in Middlebury, and Travis Thomason was there, the new state director for the Social Conservation Service, or excuse me, NRCS. And he mentioned the Inflation Reduction Act, which put a lot of money into conservation programs and different things, $20 billion over 10 years. And he mentioned to the folks last night that what that means for Vermont is an annual increase from about 12 million a year to 32 to 42 million. He figured 20 to 30 additional million dollars are going to come to Vermont because of the IRA. So you can get them in here to tell yourself, but that's great. Those are notes that I made for NRCS. That's great. And we over the last four, six years, we've worked on quite a lot on regenerative ag and trying to build, get our guys, our farmers to build better soils and if you do that, you use less commercial fertilizer, you retain the water and the soils, grow better crops. And I think they're catching on. We're injecting a lot of fields with manure and injecting it right into the soils and Red Shaffer, he's a big, large, all up north, he was showing me his agronomists reports and I think he was just about 50% reduction in commercial fertilizer on these fields that he's been working for the last five years with injections and getting the manure on at the right time. And it's working and our big guys are all into that and what we're doing is trying to help our districts of all the injectors, the manure injectors so they can block different farmers use the same piece of equipment but of course you run out of time that way, right? So I don't know if they have a program that helps these water districts like St. Clinton but I think they may have a, do they have a manure injector, do they talk about that? Do they talk about the water state coalition groups or the conservation districts? The conservation districts, I know some of them do have but I don't know about the watershed. Yeah, I'm not sure about the Shandling Valley folks maybe or not but they'd love to come up and tell you. So I'm not sure if you haven't heard from them yet. It seems to be making a vast difference. Okay, you better get on to your meals program. That's right, that's right, that's right. Let me say a word about that. Yeah. So Senator Starr, this committee and how we've been sent at at having worked in universal school meals you may know we extended it one year last year. We've had a lot of testimony in this committee and in education around what a huge difference it's making. You're getting a couple of things happening, you're getting fewer kids going to the nurses office because of belly aches because they haven't eaten, getting more community gatherings in the lunch room, cafeterias every morning and afternoon. So socializing, things like that. Getting a lot more healthy foods. I mean, I think upwards to a million dollars was spent on local farms because of this and we hope that that's just gonna continue to increase. I think I'm more than confident in five years we could see schools in this state saying 80, 90% of our food is locally sourced. And so our hope is to extend this going forward. It's not a huge ticket item but it's a big ticket item. I mean, we're talking roughly $20 million and then some but as I think we're all hearing, the stigma is so tough in schools. I mean, we heard this in my chair, Senator, in the afternoon. Yesterday it was just reinforced and unless you go to universal meals that stigma's not going to break down. I mean, the stories themselves, the stomach aches for one, the kids that when you don't in some schools we heard, I think what was said was in some schools, hopefully this isn't Vermont, but if you have meal debt, you don't get the same kind of meal as other kids. Tough chasing parents down, looking for money, heartbreaking, this is the United States of America. You get, in some of the argument as well, and wealthier kids can pay, but we don't make wealthy kids pay further than history textbooks.  So I'm optimistic. One thing, Bobby has always taught us is be able to count to 16. That's what we're gonna carve on his tombstone. But, although Brian will give us all. And you do that when you change the house. So I'm sure you'll do that. So, I'm optimistic we're gonna be able to do this, but you should just be aware that this is on our radar and it's really important that we're hearing it's making. Frankly, I think I've been shocked by what a big difference it's making in the schools when we have people who are feeding kids every day talk to us, so, yeah. What would really work well if the feds put through a, in the nutrition program, school nutrition, if they would put through a matching, even a matching fund, also that if they couldn't do it all, which is nationwide, that's very expensive, but it would be some type of a voluntary program that if your state wants to do a pretty universal meals, they pay half or, and then get the state or even the local district to do half, but it's really important, and I don't think we're any different socially our state than most states about feeding their children. They come to school hungry all over the country, not just in Vermont, and in the other issue, we talk about the environment and not, well, we're, as a society, we're better off to grow that food locally than, and I'm a, by profession, I was always a truck person and, yeah, it's crazy to run a truck from the West Coast to the East Coast with a load of veggies on it, when we can grow them right here, know what we're growing, know what's being put into the soils and so it doesn't make any sense to, just because they mass produce it, to truck that stuff all the way across the country, and the truck's gonna go back home as well, and so I think those two issues are big and just last evening on the news, they were showing these wealthy people buying up thousands of acres of land out in the West, and you would think that they were maybe gonna farm, it isn't that they're gonna farm, they wanna keep that water that's assigned to that land to sell to developments that are gonna be built, so they have adequate water. Well, what's gonna happen to that land out West if that's really accurate? I mean, in a weaker to adult, they showed farmland in the West with tracks in the soils that were three, four inches wide. We eat that in Addison County, Bob, here in the normal summer. Yeah. So, if we're gonna secure our food availability, I think we're better off if we can do it at home here rather than relying on our friends from the Midwest and West Coast. Yeah, so, sorry, yeah. No, I'm just gonna add, it also gives all of our local farmers this level of predictability. You know you're gonna sell carrots to the elementary school, and it lets young farmers take chance. Open this, they can come, they can lease some land, they can buy some land, they can expand their farm, we can continue to increase that incentive by local. Of course. So, yeah, you're not gonna get any argument from anybody here, we know that. And so, just take a minute to speak to some of that. At the staff level, we've been working with Allen Kaler, who's, you know, well, and she's been working with the New England Feeding, New England Initiative to move this farm plate effort beyond Vermont, which is appropriate, and yeah, it should happen. And so, one of the things that we've been talking about, I don't know that it's gonna happen, but one of the things that we've been talking about was maybe if she could kind of kick off a brown bag lunch series for New England delegation staffers in D.C. to raise awareness around what resilient New England food system might look like in terms of economic development, workforce development, job opportunities, all of it, and production, and so on. So, don't know where it's gonna go, but we're kind of scheming and working on that. We do recognize the value of a local, dynamic local food system, not even if COVID didn't teach us anything, it taught us that the value of local resilient food supplies. So, absolutely, I know as we come up with our priorities for the Farm Bill, this is one piece that we'd love to make sure can happen if we can get some language, even if it's for the 28th Farm Bill, get some language in there to start moving that oil tanker kind of in that kind of direction where nationally we could recognize that national food security looks like regional food security. We've also talked with the land trust and with Gus at BHC about taking farm land that comes up for sale and trying to figure out a way that you can maybe walk that so that a young farmer hasn't got to buy a 400 acre farm, they could maybe lease 20 acres of the fields to grow crops on their 10 or start out with buy maybe and add to it. And so they can afford to get into the growing businesses. The growing businesses, you know, some can afford to buy larger plots, but many are restricted to a smaller plant. That's gonna be huge going forward, is access to land. And not just that, but also access to people who can profitably farm that land. So there's a whole nother level of education that's gonna happen as the farming community ages out and they're not replaced by the place-based learners who happen to be their children. You know, and it's gonna come from away somewhere. What does that look like? Is it happening in our CTEs? Is it happening in our universities? Where is that gonna happen? And so that's another piece of that, yeah. There's also a capacity issue, honestly. And to the earmark that Senator Sanders got is like directly addressing that. So farmers who are making carrots need to be able to put them, process them and put them in a package that a farm can get and USDA will pay for. And so there's like an integration piece that it continues to mature as we get further and further in the farm to school program. But we need more folks like the center for the ag economy, more processing hubs to aggregate and allow these farmers the actual ability to do the sale. It's also true and you know, we've been growing the community eligibility program in the school meals for forever and COVID hit and it went away. Everyone was in a community eligibility school. But there are schools, I think a number of schools in Vermont that reach a community eligibility threshold that can actually do universal school meals because it's so burdensome to like track and find, get all the information from parents. Like there's a lot of detail that's required by USDA to make sure a small school in rural Vermont can feed every one of its kids. And it's those issues that, A, the community eligibility stuff we can maybe keep expanding and trying to grow to sort of back into a universal school meal program. Or at least expand the pool of students that that's eligible to. But it requires a lot of work with USDA to make sure that schools can actually that meet those standards can actually access that. Thank you. See the SNAT program, what we did hear about the universal meals is we ask schools to still do the income eligibility thing. If there was some way that those people in, I'll use my term, Troy, if there's some way that Troy could get the SNAT participants number, doesn't have to be John Jones or, but just a number that lives in Troy, they're on SNAT. Well, you could add up pretty quick the number of children that would qualify for three or reduced meals. And then the school would add that to their findings and get credit for that. Now you have to send the paper to the individual or have to fill it out. And I mean, if they don't feed their children or have product feed their children breakfast at home before they go to school, maybe they just start to fill out the paper to send in as well. And I would think, I know confidentiality is a big issue, but if they could just send the beds but just send a number, and so it would allow the community to get credit for those free or reduced lunch and stuff. It would help us a great deal. I don't know if I'm thinking way, way off base here. No, I mean, that data is available. It's like there, it's like in the census data, it's in other government agencies. We're relying on the school districts and parents to meet a threshold of community eligibility through like one piece of paperwork at a time, seems absurd in now. And so it is just preventing kids from eat that should have access to universal meals, access. In schools, it's particularly a challenge in Troy. It's like, it's hard in Burlington, but they do it because they have the resources to do it. Yeah, but in smaller schools and smaller communities, it's much, much harder and the resources are much thinner. I don't see where a hot lunch program is gonna work any better because they know that Mrs. So-and-So's child deserves free lunch, I'm sure. But if it was just a number and that, so it's not gonna think about richly good, I.R.E. So piggybacking off that, yeah, the IRS knows what most households are making, does it not? I mean, the NSA has information about all of us. This information is there, it actually resides somewhere in Washington. Can we just be smart about merging that data and finding out which districts are deserving of how many reduced meals? It just seems like a no-brainer. I had two children and I wasn't working two jobs and I don't know if I would have had the bandwidth to fill out a form if I needed to. I mean, this is not common sense. To expect, say, a single mom with one child even who's trying to make ends meet, to be filling out a form like I just tracked down this weekend, it's just hard, it's really hard to do that and get it in on time or whatever. Let's make it easier. Right. You have the data. 100% on board, yes. We'll call it in the Farm Bill. There you go. Fine. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. So I think I can speak for everybody here that we're very grateful and appreciative of the help from our federal partners to get to the breakfast and lunch situation. And you mentioned, Ryan, and I don't know, most of that appropriation probably didn't come from the Farm Bill. It probably was from the Rescue Plan money or some similar kind of relief situation. But you also mentioned that the Farm Bill runs out of a field, so to speak, in the deadline that it's probably going to just be re-opped. Is there any way to put an allocation, a line item in that for this program that we're talking about, or does it strictly have to come from someplace else? It just seems like, I mean, everybody kind of thinks it's a great idea, but we can't figure a way to do it. Yeah. Once you, the problem is once you open it, you kind of like open it, so there'll be a lot of reluctance to change a thing until they have a whole package. But it doesn't mean we'll stop trying, because I hear you, I mean, it's, yeah. For us, either there's another idea of some sort of matching situation could be worked out. It makes it easier to sell it here. Yeah, sure. I'm sorry.  Almost. I just have to say, with all of this, we're talking about school lunch, and school breakfast, and all that, as the cutbacks come in the supplemental programs to things like three squares, and those people that are truly in need are the supplemental programs for three squares are going away. So we're cutting back on food programs to the people that I consider about truly needing. And as we do that, I hope you don't forget those, and you don't just go after the new programs, too. Yeah, absolutely. We won't. I just have to say that, because the supplemental programs to three squares are going away. Right. And in this month? And it's going to hit people in April? Yeah, and it's going to hit people in April, and it's going to hit the truly needed. Yeah. Yeah. We had some of our hot lunch stat in, and they, like at the end of the day, they have cool blood. They make too much, or run out of this, but they've got this, and they put that on a shelf. So kids, when they check out, want to go home, they walk by the shelving area and pick different foods up, but they're not sacked to take home. And as we were wondering, we asked the question, well, what do you do with food that's left over? And that sounded like a pretty good idea. And of course, some of our smaller schools, they have one person. Sometimes they might get lucky and have a person a half or two. But up in the kingdom, a lot of the hot lunch programs are run by one or one and a half people. And so they're working hard to not be overloaded with labor. And it's really amazing how the hot lunch agents, the school personnel, the school nurses, there's not one, we haven't had one complaint or wage to make it better. They said that they're having problems getting the forms filled out. And so we've got to work more on helping them with that. You've been here from the School Nutritionist Association, I'm guessing? Pardon? School Nutritionist Association folks. Well, we had a little bit of a name for Rosie. Rosie. Rosie Little River? Yeah. And what a difference a year makes. So last year when we were getting this all put together, the year before it was worse, but last year was still questionable about, well, I don't know if we can do it, and it's going to be this hard, and it's going to cost $40 million. And this year, a real positive attitude about the way it went and how well it's working. And so it's a big shift in a positive, very positive way. Other questions? No? Are you going to talk to any more questions for us? Did you cover the organic piece, Saturday? You asked me a question about organic dairies. And did we answer that to your satisfaction? Well, there isn't a very margin coverage. An organic dairy margin protection program would be nice. Well, it needs to be a different, I mean, the same type of program, except for the feeds up here and the milks up here. So it'd be a different level. Exactly, that matches their need and their situation. Because their paper hasn't changed for six or eight years. And you were at that meeting earlier about $7 to $6 to $8. Well, the other day, we had a hearing the last Thursday morning. We had a hearing that lasted from maybe 10.30 on the organic stock, 10.30 till quarter after 12 or something like that. And then we got off because we thought it was over. And then we had other obligations. And then Thursday afternoon, late in the afternoon, I got a note that the House had voted and request out to approach $9.2 million, which was equal to $5 a hundred way for the entire .2 year. And I said, well, golly, we should have heard this between 10.30 and 10 and no, not after supper or during supper hour or Thursday night, because there's a lot of ins and outs and planning and coordinating. And because Rich and I both set our appropriations over here. Well, we're going to get drilled with some serious questions that, well, what are you guys and Ag doing? Because we're all in the same pocket. And so anything that could happen in DC to set that DMC program up a little different to help those people when the costs go right through the roof and fertilizer because they have to use organic fertilizer, that would help, I think, our 140 or so organic guys a great deal. And we certainly don't want to lose any of them. They keep our rural landscape open and pasture their animals. And now, people don't drive here to look at my friends, the red shatts, the row of irons and the cows in the early. You see them through the doors in the summer. And they come to see the animals out in the field. And the other thing we're bumping up against is we've done diversification for many years. And a lot of farms are diversifying to do on-farm events of different types. And we're bumping up against zoning and active 50 and quite a few different regulations that some of us would like to change to allow this to go on. But we're getting further and further. We are representatives and are further and further away from growing up on the farm. And they don't always understand that you constantly have to be changing things to survive. And so that's one of our issues that we need to work out here in Vermont. Yeah, Senator Sanders is the early supporter of agritourism. You know, it's normally earmarks and that. And there's quite a vibrant agritourism group. You've met them maybe or should be meeting with them soon. Because they're kind of rocking it in a way. They're doing a really great job. They had an international workshop here in Burlington. 540 people from 38 nations hosted here in the state. So there's some good people doing really good work. And you can probably get some good advice from them. Yeah, Beth Kennedy usually had Beth Kennedy. And now from veggies to small animals to maple, y'all may. But if you get people to come here and to go visit the farm, you've got one place in Heartland on White River. The guy's got these small tiny homes. And he rents them out for the weekend or whatever. And state laws. He was having to take spaghetti lobs on his farm because they had to have two acres with each house. You know, the bad bigs this room, maybe. So he had to go out and do the safe region. But we did get back fixed. And so we have some good things that happen. But we need a lot more entice and help these people. Because they're really clever on what they're doing and how they're doing it. And let us know how we get support. Yeah, thanks a lot. Thank you. We danced around the whole issue. It's really hard for anybody in small agriculture who's dying here as it's dying across the country. And the same trends, whether it's dairy or it's a. And part of that is in relationship. I support the purchase of developer rights programs. But now in my area, when larger farmers are buying up land, it's flood plain. And now it's $3,000 to $5,000 of an acre to do that no young people can come up with a cap. We have to figure out a better way to support young people in small agriculture to move ahead. So anything that you guys can see to do that is important. I see young people in my area, they go to work for the bigger farmers. And they can't get into agriculture themselves because the cost of production is still so high even than the programs that we've got. I think it's safe to say that one of the real problems with the loss of small farms and so forth is the loss of farm families and farm kids. And the loss of the economy suffers from that. No, but even if you are a kid that knows how to do it, you can't get the capital to get in. That's right. Even we saw it 25, 30 years ago, you buy the developer rights, and they would be able to buy and they can. And so I think we have to think about other things we can do to help them get in. Happy to be part of that conversation? Yeah, I think there will be a relatively robust conversation around land access, both for that reason. For young farmers, you see consolidation in the industry and everything is getting bigger and bigger. It makes it much harder to get in. And then also like equity issues, we've had Peter's been on a number of bills in the recent past, and some of this stuff is tied up in litigation at this point. But there is an intention within the Biden administration to provide access to land to young people in marginalized communities that have been prevented historically in documented ways, specifically by USDA from owning and farming land. And so it's certainly something that we're interested in supporting as we move forward here. Now I say it with no answers, but you know that. Yeah. What about a few years back, we talked about community or an area-based digester like in the Madawee Valley. I think you were here then, well, and we never got good traction on that. And the big reason I think was that the farmers got chewing arguing that I had better manure than you had. And how do I know I'm going to get my good manure back to a strike? And I think those days are gone. But the gas from our manure is still there. And if we could, my question is, I'm wondering if there ain't federal money to help build a digester or say in the Madawee Valley where farmers could take the manure and get it processed through that, make energy out of the gas. Or even if it was designed so it's set near the gas lines that we had, they could take that gas and put it right into the gas line even and not do the electricity pump it in. Do you know if there's any where you can? I don't know about federal funds for exactly what you proposed, but there's a lot of support for methadone farm digesters. And the Goodridge Farm down in Salisbury, I believe is pumping gas and just what you're talking about. So with other food waste and other waste products. I think part of the issue, if I remember right, is it was the transportation and the hauling stuff that they've done studies. I know years ago they did a study, Ann Arndt did a study for municipal compost or decentralized compost facilities around the state. And I think they felt that 20 miles was the max in terms of transportation. So they needed lots of little satellite entities accepting food scraps for composting in order for it to probably be more than 20 miles away from the facility in order to be profitable. I'm sure the same would be true in the north. What's that farms are getting? I don't know. More and more and more. So that's what I have on farm facilities. But the little, for small farms to do a small digester. There's technology there for it to happen. Small and interval digesters. Not necessarily to scale, so they could tap into a gas mine or even feed it a generator, but for gas. I mean, for on farm gas use or something like that. I've seen it, it exists, the technology exists. So that's there then? Yes. Anything else from committee? No, thank you very much. Yeah, thank you. Thanks for all your work. Thank you for coming and y'all, if you feel at any time you need something from us, feel free to contact us and but don't forget, we're looking to you for big things. You won't let us forget. Thank you. Thank you very much. No, thank you very much. Very nice having you in. David, it was a nice meeting you all. Good to meet you. And good to watch for you. Thank you. Say hi to the family. Yeah, certainly well, yeah. And again, vice versa, don't hesitate to reach out to us. I'm sure the same of these two. Any time. Thank you. Very good. I'll get over it for them. You can do something. I don't. I know. Exactly. I love it. Oh, it's great. It's great. It's great. So, welcome to the, we have the John Rogers coming in at quarter of the log in. And you guys, take a picture and yeah, we've got the whole crew coming in on. I got that. I'm going to get a support group. Thanks. Coming in on Columbus. Next. So, okay, let me get a real break. Well, good morning. We're back from our break from this morning earlier. We talked about congressional delegation and had a good conversation with them. And yeah, we're moving to Columbus. And former Senator John Rogers sent us a list of, all of the stuff we've got in the frame. Yeah, I think we're all, oh, you have a new one. I added a couple of things to go on. That is too much. Oh my goodness, this is the 20 list. So yeah, if you want the list of 20. Yeah, one extra, I don't know what you guys are talking about. We heard through a call that John sent that. And we talked about it in the committee and thought we would invite John and the other panelists, people in to talk about, well, as a grower and a producer that we'd hear from you first and then we'd move on to others to see how things were working for them. So welcome, it's good to see you and have you back in the building. Excellent, thank you, Senator Starr. And thank you, committee. I haven't met. Should we enter into the homes? Yeah, why don't we do a little quick run around? Well, Brian, follow more of the Brooklyn District. John and I know each other. Irene, Renner, Chittenden, North, including Fairfax. Good to meet you. Good to meet you. And I know the rest of the cast and characters. And this one too, I remember him. So anyway. Excellent, yes, thank you, I'll launch right in. So as the senators who served with me know, I grew hemp for years before adult use cannabis became legal and in one of the things, and I've talked with both James Pepper and Kerry Gajer at the CCB about this, we did a heck of a lot of work with this committee on hemp. And I think we built a heck of a hemp program. And I was extremely disappointed to hear that the agency of AG gave up on our hemp program and sent it back to the USDA. I hope they don't give up on dairy farmers when they get down to a certain number. And the things that bothers me about cannabis, both hemp and the adult use cannabis, is the legislatures put together programs that are supposed to support themselves in fees. And no other department or agency that I know of in state government has that charge. The cannabis, both types are creating sales that create sales tax and economic development. And that goes back into the general fund. Some general fund money should be used to prop up both of those organizations as an aside. But what I would like to do is have hemp defined as any cannabis with a THC level of under 1% and put the hemp program under the CCB. It's the exact same plant. It has different cannabinoids. I personally believe these cannabinoids are gonna be more important than ever. There are a lot of people who go for just the highest THC. Those are the folks, they're like the folks that wanna drink their whiskey straight. But the other cannabinoids for medicinal purposes, for pain relief, for inflammation, and for the entourage effect, the experience of actually being mellowed or calmed without being super psychoactive. The CBD and the CBG are extremely important. So, and my hope would be that the hemp growers would only have to register, pay a registration fee. I just threw $100 out there just for your information. The last, I've got a ton or two of hemp biomass sitting in my barn right now that I'll probably have processed myself at some point. But the last offer I got on my hemp was $1.75 a pound. Now your plant average under a pound in the seed cost me a dollar. So you can see there's not much profit in hemp today. The only reason we're still doing it is because when we started out, we had an idea that the hemp prices were not gonna remain what they were. We didn't think they would drop so precipitously so quickly, but we make our own products. And so the only hemp we grow now is to make our own products. And you can draw sort of a parallel with people who are in the dairy business. If you sell your milk in the bulk tank, you're probably not making much. If you're making cheese or yogurt on the farm and adding that value, you can actually make more money. So we've been able to stay in the hemp business that way, making our products. We get feedback from people that's really what's kept me in the business. I have chronic back pain. So I've been, that's why one of the reasons I got into it and I use it every day. And it helps me with my pain. But we've heard incredible feedback from our customers about how it's changed their lives. And that really, excuse me, makes it rewarding enough to make you wanna to stay in the business. We're not making a ton of money with the CBD, but it is growing and it is somewhat profitable. So hemp is considered an agricultural product. And you'll see on my number four on the list, all cannabis grown outdoors should be considered an agricultural product. It's a plant, it's agriculture. Growing plants is agriculture. The wording would have to be played with. And I know we've got masters in our legislative staff with wording. We don't want the agency to have anything to do with it. But for the growing of the plant, it needs to be considered agriculture. If you have a farm that is fallow and you've got a neighbor that wants to get into the cannabis business and rent a piece of land from you, if it's over a thousand square feet, you gotta take it out of current use. Now, if you gotta take it out of current use, you're gonna get your current use penalty, which is gonna cost you more than the guy can afford to pay you for the rent. So nobody's gonna do it. We got farm buildings sitting empty that could be used to dry. That's where I dry mine in an old dairy barn. In the hay barn, it's 40 by 190. People actually got in trouble this year for drying in some of their ag buildings because their ag buildings were in current use. And I think that's just silly. For current use and land use, both state and municipal, it should be considered agriculture under the CCP. And why couldn't it be there? Just because our laws don't specifically say that it is, it currently it's not considered agriculture. And I think that was something that happened in the other chamber. So that should be an issue that we need to check. If it's hemp, it's agriculture, if it's cannabis, it's not. It's exactly the same plant. I make the comparison between a Granny Smith apple and a red delicious. It's exactly the same plant, but they have different flavors. So hemp and the THC have different cannabinoids. That's the only difference. It's the exact same plant. Do they look at the same plant? They look at the same plant. Do they look at the same plant? Exactly. You couldn't tell the difference. Walking through the field, you can't tell the difference. So they should both be considered ag. It should be all ag, right, for every purpose, except for the agency of ag needs to be kept out of hand. The cannabis control board, you work at? Yeah, everything to do with both hemp and the THC cannabis should be under the CCB, in my view. Yeah, and then line five is sort of a reiteration. All cannabis grown and processed on existing farms, traditionally farmland and farm buildings, it should be considered agriculture at the state and municipal level. And who told you your barn or a barn couldn't be in current use? Well, they, my barn isn't in current use, so it doesn't really matter to me, but I heard through, we're a pretty tight, a small guys are a pretty tight knit group and we do a lot of networking and talking with each other. And so there's a lot of folks that are saying that there's a lot of problems out there with it not being agriculture. Yeah. So if it was agriculture in the barn, the indoors, because we've had other conversations about, and moving towards having further conversations about what tips act to 50. If it was agriculture in the barn, it wouldn't tip out. Right, exactly. But now, because it's a commercial product, it would tip back to 50. And there again, most farmers are not gonna put their farm under act 250, they're just not gonna do it. So it's a missed economic opportunity for farmers in farmland to not have it in agriculture. Well, is it a commercial product before it goes in the barn?  So doesn't it have to dry before it's worth much? Yes, yes, absolutely. It's good, yeah. So it's a raw product as it goes into the facility. Yep. But remind us of the licenses, you're a growing license. And there's a, the middle man is the processor. There's growing, there's manufacturing, there's processing, there's retail. But the growing part. The growing part is what I'm talking about. The growing, it should be agriculture, especially outdoors. If you're putting it in the former Toys R Us building in Williston, I can see that being commercial. You're in a commercial space, you're in a commercial building. But when you live on a farm or are renting from a farmer, like Richie, whose family has been farming for generations on that farm, it should be considered agriculture. Every aspect of it should be, it is agriculture, and you're growing plants. But in the barn, if you go over 1,000 square feet, which isn't all that big to say. It isn't all that big. 30 by 32 by 32. Well, 10 by 100 is the easy way to figure it, or 20 by 50, right? Yeah, yeah. But if you, in the barn, you go over 1,000 square feet, then it occurs commercial too. And then we have the question of what the commercial space is. The ag space, exactly. It's way more confusing than it needs to be the way it is right now. I'd say quite a lot more. So currently, I take my biomass to my processor, and he turns it into distillate, which looks like honey. It's thick, golden-colored stuff. I can't, and I believe the CCB, I talked with James, and this is one of their legislative asks, but I can't go and pick up my own distillate because it's been concentrated. This puts the farmers at a serious disadvantage because now I have to pay somebody to go pick that up and take it to the manufacturer or somebody else. I need to be just like a sugar maker where I can have my leaders sitting on a shelf and when a manufacturer calls me up and says I need a leader of distillate, I can take that distillate to them. Otherwise, we're basically making it so. Farmers are very limited to wholesale or less than wholesale prices because we can't handle our own concentrates. In that UPS, sir? No, you can't send any of that stuff through a carrier. You have to deliver it. So it has to be licensed to carrier? Yep, yeah. So like the manufacturers and the processors and the wholesalers are all in their license able to move those concentrates, but I think it was more an oversight than anything else, but if the small farmers are gonna make it, we need to be able to value add just like other types of agriculture that are allowed to value add. That's the only way we're gonna be able to make it. And on that note, I'm not sure how much you all know about these processes, but there is a process called ice water extraction, which I would like farmers to be allowed to use. There are no solvents, no alcohol. You basically put the flour into ice water and agitate it in the tricomes, which are the little tiny pieces of the plant that hold the medicine, drop to the bottom, you put it through a series of screens and what you're left with is just the hash, they call it hash, but it's just the medicinal part and then you get rid of the plant material that has very little or no value left to it. It's a very super simple, safe extraction method in a way for farmers to add value to their product that we think we should be allowed to do. And who would be opposed to that? I don't know if anybody would be opposed to it. I think you're gonna have to wait and see. I don't know maybe some of the processors would be, but I can't see it because there's not very many people offering that service. So I don't think there's gonna be opposition to it, but I've been in this building long enough to know to anything can happen. Many of us growers would like the ability to sell seeds and live plants to the public without an additional license. It's just another way to make a little bit of money in the springtime when us outdoor growers are pretty much out of our plant material and spending money on fertilizers and irrigation and all that other stuff. And some people see it as another revenue stream. And how would you control who has, who's bought seeds and who's growing this product? See, now you have to be licensed and all that to be able to do that. Right, but we also have the law that allows homeowners to grow their, I think it's eight total, anybody know for sure, eight total and two mature? Yeah, two and a half. Eight total and two mature plants. So that means that home growers could come and buy their eight plants from you in the springtime so that they didn't have to start them or they could buy their seeds from you. Because one of the problems even folks like us are having is getting the genetics and a lot of the people that are in the business have been growing in the black market. So they already had their strains figured out and everything, but like myself, I gave up the black market a long time ago when I got into politics. So I don't have any of my old strains. So I'm starting from scratch and it's quite a challenge because you have to trust the guy on the other end of the phone because you're sending them an awfully large check and you don't know what's in those little brown seeds and if it's gonna produce what they told you it's gonna produce or not. And both in the hemp and cannabis industry, there have been an awful lot of people selling seeds that are not what they promised them to be. So this is just a way to help. I think they're a lot better than what you thought you were gonna get. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Count them on one hand. Yeah, exactly. One of the requirements that I clearly do not understand is to be able, is operating on only one parcel of land. Myself personally, we have the place where we started our hemp business where we've got a small indoor grow room where we start the plants and we've got a greenhouse attached to the workshop where we take them after they're germinated and started and put them out and get them ready for the field. In 2019, we bought the farm that's been in my family for some 200 years to try to increase where we were before. There wasn't much farmland. We wanted to increase the scale of our hemp operation at that time, bought the farm is really bad timing. Just before COVID hit, we opened our bed and breakfast and two months before it closed. And because of COVID in the hemp market went like that. But anyways, so currently I have a mile and a half down the road, a perfect place to start my plants and under the current framework, I can't use it because it's not attached to my farm. So it would be nice if we could expand it to at least two parcels. I mean, just like many dairy farmers, all their parcels where they, hey, aren't connected, the land doesn't abut. And I don't know as long as you have it listed so the CCB knows where everything you have is, I don't understand why we would limit it to one parcel. So I think it was maybe an oversight but there was probably somebody that thought it was a good idea. Let's see, where am I here? Number 11, we're hoping to have some sort of direct-to-consumer sales because they're again. So, did I bring them? Yeah, same for right here. So we have the expense of the genetics. This is one of our single joints in the tube. So we've already paid, already paid, I think we bought enough seeds, so it was three bucks a seed and we did the tail end and the planting and the care of the plants and we grew them out and harvested them and dried them and broke them down and trimmed them and cured them and ground them up and stuffed them in a paper, in a glass tube with a ridiculous label that doesn't leave any room for a story about your own farm and we're selling those for $5.95 a piece. Now, when they go into a retail store most of the retailers are doubling the price. So they're making $5.95 on that joint, I'm not making $5.95 on that joint, I'm selling it for $5.95, but I'm making a fraction of that because of all the cost I incurred going into it. And even if it starts out as a limited opportunity to sell via special events or limited number of days a month that we could sell direct to the public, I could actually sell that for the 12 or 15 bucks that the retail stores are getting. Back to... What is that? That it's a joint, it's a cigarette. You want it, you can smoke it later instead of your other one. Right, better for you. It is way better for you, non-carcinogenic. All up, Brian. Okay. But anyways, it's just another way that the farmers can make a little bit more money just like a farmer taking fruits and vegetables to the farmers market is getting retail instead of wholesaling it to the store. And you know, my perspective in both the hemp and the cannabis when I was here is trying to help the small Vermont farmers be able to make a living and stay in it. I like it's a glass, I also don't know how fast it is. That's one of the rules. How many of the small producers of the thousands square feet make things like this? A lot of them because even though there's more labor in that than anything else, it's adding the most value to your product. And that's another problem in the market right now is that I've heard some farmers getting ridiculously low offers on their biomass. So just like milk, the middleman's trying to buy it low and sell it high. And so this is a way we can kind of control our own destiny. And you do have a lot of labor costs in it believe me, it takes a long time to get that thing prepped and ready for sale. Did we prescribe what you had on that label? Yes, and it is just, it's completely over the top. You can't even, you can barely fit everything that we're required to put on a label on the label. And like I said, it leaves you no room to tell your story, it leaves you just the bare minimum to be able to get your information on the tube. Yeah. One of the other things that I had to do and all growers have to do, I think all cannabis licensees have to do is they made me escrow $2,500 in case I go out of business. And like I said to the CCB on my application, if I go out of business, I'm gonna try to sell it to another license establishment and if I can't, I'll put it in a pile and light a match to it just like I have done with hemp that wasn't fit for consumption or I had too much hemp, I've had to burn it a couple of times and it doesn't cost me a darn thing. But what these rules have done is taken $2,500 of my money that I could really use right now and it's sitting in an escrow in case I go out of business which I think is silly. If you have a big retail shop and you've got thousands of items in the back room, maybe that makes sense. But for the outdoor farmers, to me it doesn't make any sense. It's wasting my money and satinize money on the sideline. So it's $2,500? Yup, you sat in an escrow account. Number 13, remove the requirements that employees of grower operations need a background check and pay $50 to the CCB for a registration. We don't do this with any other employees, I have feelings about the whole background check thing anyway. But anyways, if you wanna background check the owner, make sure they got nothing, no red flags, fine. But we should be able to hire people that we trust and what this does is like I have a son that lives in Virginia.  When people show up and they offer to help and you're working, well, legally he can't work. He can't come out to the field with us and help me. Why? Just because I have to do it, he would have to go through a background check and the application process and send another $50 to the CCB. And we pay, I paid $6,500 for my license and put $2,500 in an escrow. In another $1,800 in liability insurance, which I don't understand because if anybody's in my crop, they're on posted property, they're nobody's supposed to be there. And so it's just to change, to change, to change, to change. You've got 10 grand into your thousand square feet. In my, I have a tier three, so I've got 625 plants outdoors is what I do. But it's just, to me, it's nickel and diamond us and we should have control over who we hire. And why shouldn't we maybe hire somebody who has a shaded past? I mean, shouldn't we give people a chance in society and it should be just like every other business in the state, it should be our choice who we trust and who we hire. Well, when the burden would be on the owner anyways, if something. Captain goes down with the ship. Yeah. How is that enforced? I don't know if there's any enforcement. I don't think there's much enforcement in the whole process. And that's why I think a lot of the process is quite silly because they've got these requirements and they don't have enough manpower to even check up on it. I went down and did a delivery at Mountain Girl down in Rutland and he said he keeps sending in his reports and sends them an email. Am I doing this right? Is everything okay? Hasn't even heard back from them. We sent in some product registrations a couple months ago. We haven't even heard back from them. They just, they don't have the manpower to do all of this stuff. So requiring us to jump through those hoops is a little bit silly. Yeah. Maybe they haven't got the $50 to register their employees. And then the other place they get us for 50 bucks and from my perspective, it's not even clear what we're supposed to be doing is product registration. And like I said, we sent in our product registration and they haven't even gotten back to us to tell us it's okay or not. But every product you put in, they charge you 50 bucks for. I think my license fee is more than enough to cover everything I need to do. So if I put this strain in this tube, is this one product? And I put a different strain in this tube and it's a second product. Is it a second product if I put three of those in a box instead of one in the tube? It's like, to me it's just silly. We should have to send in our labels, make sure we got everything on them and register the product, no fee. And it's determined to be registered unless they get hold of us and say, no, there's a problem. You didn't put something on your label. It should, it's just way more difficult. I have a friend that they sent one in in November and still hasn't heard back. Now us as business people, I'm not in the black yet. I'm still in the red and I'm hoping in the next two weeks I'm gonna finally be in the black but that's getting no money for my labor. And I basically worked two full-time jobs last year because my masonry and excavating paid for the fireman. And so...  Well, I don't get quite as many hours in as I did when we were milking cows, but I get plenty in. Yeah, but if you get into the black you're not a real farmer. I guess that's probably true, Senator Starbaugh. I'm really hoping this is a different type of farming. I'm really hoping there's actually a profit in it. Well, we can prove you're not a real farmer. Okay, well.  I think I'm hoping not to be a real farmer then.  Okay, well, so far it's a real farm but I'm hoping to make it not one. I think the CCB pushed the legislature to charge much less for licensed fees. And I believe it was the house that decided to go up where they did. It's, as I explained before, it's extremely expensive to get into this. And I think there's a lot of average vermoners out there that wanted to be in this business and looked at the cost and I talked with a few of them and said, I couldn't do it. I cannot get in. And so there needs to be some structure. I think it should be reduced for everybody, especially outdoor growing because outdoor growing is less, the product's less valuable and it's tougher and it's seasonal. But there should be some incentive, especially for new growers to allow them a reduced rate at least for the first year so they can get in, get their feet under and make a little money, then charge them full on, whatever. But at the- So why wouldn't you charge them on their outflow? If you're selling product else, you should be making some money on that product. If you had a real bad year and a third year, say it rained every day or whatever, in that bad year. I mean, it happens. I think that might be too involved and too confusing, but it's a risk, just like any other type of farming. We started with just over 625 plants and ended out under 600 plants because you have a windstorm and a couple get snapped off. You have power email do show up in a couple of places and you get rid of those plants as fast as you can so it doesn't spread to the other plants. I mean, there's things that happen just like there is with any other farming. But I just, I personally think the license fees are still plenty high, but if we reduce the license fees, we have to allow some general fund money to go in as I think it should as this is generating tax revenue for the state. Just like every other agency and department in the state gets general fund money. These guys should be no different. And that's number 16. The CCB should not be expected to operate on these things. And then so for my hemp license, I had to go through a background check. I did FBI background check. It cost me about 50 bucks. I had to go to the sheriff's office, do my fingerprints, they sent it in. Well, for some reason we went with a private company to do the background checks. The background check cost me 500 bucks. Well, you must have a long luster stuff on there. No, it costs everybody 500 bucks. Even the ones that don't make as much trouble as I do. I think it's excessively expensive and I question the need for background check at all but I want it to be sure you guys are aware of that. So I basically, I had to go through two different background checks. One cost me $50 and one cost me 500. So what was the difference between the two? The difference is the $50 one is done by the FBI and the $500 one is done by a private company that the CCB contracts with. It's required, the second one's required. It's required, yeah, they're both requirements. It's excessive for a background check. It's another excessive cost that we shouldn't have to go through. So why, why the FBI background check? Well, that's a good question for my friend James Pepper when he comes in. I can't answer it. Does that, you think the FBI will? You would think that might be the premium background check, wouldn't you? Yeah. Yeah, I mean, what? By the way, the government works. Maybe I got to rethink that. They're trying to use that and then the FBI refused to process them. Well, except that they processed mine for hemp and you can put on the form for personal use and the FBI can't refuse it.  So I'm sure they wouldn't do it if you said you were in the cannabis business. But I think that can all be gotten around because every citizen has the right to ask for a background check for personal use. So that could be gotten around. Currently under the rules, we're not supposed to gift any cannabis, which I think there again is an oversight. If I'm going into a retail operation, I think they want to, but I know I want them to have samples of my product to try to make sure they know what they're getting. I mean, I wouldn't buy a thousand cases of chocolate chip cookies without trying a cookie. At least one, right? Okay. So I think we should be able to gift, especially to cancer patients. I have a friend who has at great risk to themselves. Gives cannabis products to cancer patients. And there have been miraculous results from some of these products with cancer patients. And I think it's silly for us as a state to not allow people who have the generosity in their heart to try to help others. And that right now it's illegal to gift those products even to cancer patients. And so I think that's something that needs to be addressed. Well, I could understand that a little better than not being able to gift a prospective seller or retailer. If you want to take something in for a retail outlet to sell, I mean, you'd think they would be allowed to try something. Some? I certainly wouldn't want to sell somebody's product from my store without knowing exactly what that product was. One of the big problems is banking. And we required that garbage collectors pick up, recycle in compost and they didn't want to. I think credit unions are, I believe, licensed under the state of Vermont. And I don't know why we can't require credit unions to offer banking services to people. Right now, I was at a retailer and he told me that the credit union, and I think there's only one that's doing it, is charging him $1,500 a month to have an account there. And it's just, it's robbery. The banking insurance, it's legal robbery. If it says cannabis on it, they're putting it to us. And it's just not right. I got approved for a cash management plan, but it's still a problem because you've got to get paid and you've got to pay your bills. And it's really putting us in a pickle. And our small businesses, all my friends that I'm working with, the manufacturers and processors, one of my friends in processing and manufacturing told me last month he had to borrow money from his sister to get his personal bills paid through the month. There's a lot of people out there that have put everything they have into trying to get this rolling. And like any other business, it takes some time to get back into the black. And this is making it even harder when those guys are taking such a big pinch out of the limited funds we have to work with right now. It's really a challenge. I'm going to ask this question about that. So you say you can't use a bank, right? Right, can't use a bank. So it's all, so in a way, nobody can really monitor the funds anyhow. Well, we're supposed to all be keeping track of it. Right, right, okay. For the CCB, but yeah, you're- But how do you start anything without being able to put money into a bank? It's unbelievably hard and you can't borrow money from a bank and that's one of my things is so how many people, how many average remoners have the money sitting in their bank account to start up a business like this without being able to borrow? How much do a thousand square feet in here? How much would you put into this business? How much would it cost to set it up? Yeah, how much is the startup? So if you have an existing empty building, I figured the startup's $100,000 to up fit a thousand square feet to get electrical water, all your lighting, all your air handling, and that's not going high end. You could spend $100,000 easy. And like I said, how many average remoners can pull that? They can't, it's not there. And they supposedly this will set up to help remoners get into it. Exactly, and that's why we've got so many people trying to get their start outdoors. I don't have my indoor grow set up. Even though I applied for a tier three mix, I haven't been able to use my indoor because I don't have it up fit because I haven't made enough money to up fit it yet. And as soon as we get enough money coming in, we're gonna start up fitting and start our indoor grow, but it's a struggle for average people. And go ahead. We're setting ourselves up for people who have money for themselves. Exactly, we're setting ourselves up for MSOs to come in and apply for a tier three, which is 15,000 square feet, and they set up their own manufacturing and they set up their own store and they start underselling all the rest of us because let's remember they're operating in other states. And so those guys, just like Walmart, they all operated a loss if they have to to put you out. And that's what happened in Washington state. The big ones put the little ones out and now you have we Walmart's. And that's my last point on this new sheet is reduce the maximum indoor grow operations to 10,000 square feet. Maybe let the ones that are already in operate, but more and more of those MSOs are coming in. By how big are they? 15,000 square feet, it's a pretty good size. You can build it. I'd say so. Yeah, and they've got the money. They can come in and set it up, Bing bang, boom, they're in full scale operation because they're already operating in other states and they've got income coming from all those operations. So it's a direct challenge to what myself and a lot of legislators wanted which was to try to prop up the small craft industry because those MSOs are gonna take all that profit out of state.  It's gonna go around and around the community and benefit Vermont where those MSOs are gonna take that money out of state.  This is small farming, this is small farming. The potential though to get gobbled up by the big guys is huge. Oh, I think I'm just gonna be snarky. Well, we could risk a step, we could not have any small farmers to just go straight to big rates. It's headed. Thank you, I've taken up a lot of time and we've got a couple other folks to get to, so. Yeah, we should hear from the rest of the folks. Thank you. Well, thank you, John. Thank you, John. Who are you next? Roger. My name's Adam Gross. Everybody calls me Tito. So I agree with everything John was saying. I think it's all incredibly important. I am gonna build on it a little bit and talk about some anecdotal stuff that's been happening to me and build on it a bit. But mostly just to grab ahold of what John was saying, it's so important for these small Vermont farms because you see these other states and they haven't taken these measures and Vermont tried to make it special by gearing it towards small farms, but then these little things that are still sticking around making it so difficult. And Vermont does have the potential to have this really incredible scene here. It's so different than all the rest of the country and I just love that. And so I'm here to help preserve that. And I'm gonna go a little bit farther than John and also say that indoor cannabis should be considered agriculture as well. A friend of mine took over indoor lettuce plant, I don't know what you wanna call it, a manufacturing building for lettuce. Now that was considered agriculture. To the farmer growing indoor lettuce or growing indoor cannabis or anything else for that matter, it's all the same. You're still dealing with all the same stuff. Also, I definitely think hemp has gotta be considered or defined as cannabis with a THC level of under 1% like John was saying. I was growing indoor hemp, super high CBD. I had a couple of cultivars strains that were excellent, really high CBD, over 20%, which is like, you're talking serious medicinal benefit from these plants. But the THC was 0.5 instead of 0.3 and I had to literally, like the Tomasi from that current hemp agency had to come over. I literally had to bury it in the ground with dirt in the shovel. It was just awful.  And that was medicine that people needed.  It's everything under 1% is very much not gonna get you high in a sense like regular THC cannabis would. I also agree that all things cannabis and have need to be overseen by the CCB. I'm also a retailer. So I'm dealing with this in the fact that like, now the cannabis we're growing, people that choose to smoke it or vaporize, dry or afraid of the healthy way, they still have to get a tobacco license. I mean, these products are not meant for tobacco at all. 0.0% meant for tobacco.  It's just not, it's not helping anything. So you have to get a tobacco license to be able to sell cannabis? To be able to sell a cannabis pipe or any kind of cannabis thing that you would consume cannabis out of, yeah. And why, I guess it's not fair to ask you that they board we can ask, why wouldn't they consider a cannabis license if you're in that position? Yeah, I think a lot of this is just oversight. I don't necessarily think there's anything nefariously trying to bend it one way or another. It's just how it's worked out as the cannabis controller describes it. They're trying to build a parachute as they're skydiving, you know? So there's definitely a lot of things getting missed for sure. I think it should be that way. I also agree, John brought up a point about making ice water extraction. This is just, to people who do this, it's a very common place and it's so different than other extraction in the sense that there's no big machinery, there's no solvents, there's, we're talking literally a bag with a mesh bottom and a paddle. You're spinning it with, it's like churning butter, but you know, it's like to need a manufacturing license on top of that just to do that, it just seems odd. It just doesn't really make sense. The requirements only operate on one parcel of land is also extremely limiting. So myself as an indoor grower, I have a very small building here we're talking about. I'm a tier two grower, so I'm a lot of 2,500 square feet of total canopy, all my plants all together only allow that much. So then, I'd like to get a bigger license in the future after my business works. I'd like to upgrade and maybe move on, but now, do I have to now shut down that building that I just, John was saying $100,000 or so to make that investment? For me, am I building? Try a million dollars. A million dollars. Yeah, I couldn't even fill my whole building at first. I have to just go half because I, after tapping every single penny I've ever had in my life and some money from some family members, that's all I could do.  So for example, if I could take advantage of that tax exemption for farmers on equipment, I mean, that could put a wild amount of money back in my pocket and I'm trying to do it right with all LED lights and all really cutting edge equipment that's all very green and I'm making all those efforts. It would be great to be considered agriculture because let me tell you, when I got my hands in my soil or I'm watering my plants, it feels all the same to me. I don't see what the difference is. And also, he brought up the escrow account, they call it a cessation escrow account.  And I just can't wrap my head around that one either because I'm imagining myself going out of business. Okay, the whole thing doesn't work out, goes out of business. So obviously what that $2,500 is gonna do in that scenario at all. Plus, I have all this equipment. If I went out of business, I'm gonna sell all my equipment. I'm gonna try to liquidate all my assets. This amount is just cycling those small farmers because we had to put all this money up front before we were making any revenues. That's why this has been so difficult, so incredibly difficult. Do you know the purpose of the escrow account? No, I have never had somebody explain it to me in a way that I can understand. I don't fully get it. And the $50 registering for every product is so overbearing, I definitely agree with John, very much there. And also about the CCB not operating on fees alone. I think that this market is way too important to Vermont in general to not have parity with other departments. I think it's just too important. This is not only, I also wanna also say this can make an immense dent in the problem we have of young people leaving the state. I mean, if these small farms are all able to take part of this vibrant new scene we have in this new marketplace, the young people are gonna stay. I've witnessed it myself and it's a serious problem and this can solve it. Let the cool scene we have of instead of two or three mega grows, by the way, we're talking 15,000 square feet. In other states, you're talking like half a million square feet, mega buildings that you need a golf cart to get from one end to the other, you know? And I love that Vermont has this little patchwork of all small companies. It's so vibrant and exciting and it's super exciting to young people. So I think we gotta do whatever we can to foster it. And also the background checks, just lastly, that $500 requirement is really intense. You have to do the same? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Every employee you hire has to go through that process. But those employees don't go through that special, the $500 background checks? That's everybody, owners, employees, everybody. I mean, I'm just coming out of here. Yeah. We need to check that, check that out. Yeah, very appreciate your time. That's, I guess that's my two cents for today. I'll catch you quick. Thank you. Where are you out? I'm in Addison County. Addison? Yeah, yeah. Right there by the lake. Nice. Maybe it was there. Was that his representative senators or both of us together? I don't know if Addison has senators, actually. Addison County, have any representatives in the Senate? We have, oh, in the Senate. I only know my house representatives. I'm sorry. Yeah, I don't know. How do you go to get to know your senators? Yeah, I know. I know my house. Well, I moved from Bristol, so I didn't mind the fact that I just, you're right. Well, I think he's on study committee. Well, you should give them to senators at some point. I'm not going to leave out a few. All right, let me count it four. Brownland County, are you ever going to get out of it? Yeah. That's a good idea, Brian. I'm just kidding. It doesn't happen enough. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Jesse? Good morning. I'm coming to you guys from Charlotte. Thank you, Senator Sauer. Thank you, Ag Committee, for seeing us today. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. And Tito very much for all that you guys said. I think that covered so much of what I'm here to speak about also. But one thing that I wanted to sort of make kind of clear is our case that what we're dealing with here in Charlotte, we're dealing with oversight from our town that is going above and beyond what the statute for the state has sort of put forth. And they're really finding ways to kind of push cannabis out of Charlotte if they possibly can by creating these new rules and regulations that are going above and beyond, which could all of a sudden be alleviated if we could bring cannabis just under an ag delineation. And so that's something that I'm facing here right now. And my fear is that if other towns, if this town passes stuff that's going to prohibit that, that's what's going to sort of set of presidents for potentially other towns. And I really want to get ahead of this now before our town sets it up and creates future problems for other cannabis farmers that would want to maybe farm in Charlotte or also in other parts of the state. And that's something that's pretty concerning to us that we're dealing with right now that's causing a lot of money out of our pocket on top of all these other costs that people have talked about and time. And one other thing that we're definitely here to advocate for is for, as we spoke of, the direct market sales from our farm. We would love to be able to sell cannabis from our farmer's market and just our products alone. And that is something that we feel is something that should be across the board offered to any of these farms that have all this infrastructure already set up. And I thank you guys very much for hearing us today. I'm going to be brief because I know there's some other people that want to speak. But again, I can't say more. I grow plants in the ground from seeds. If this is an agriculture, I don't know what it is. And that was something also that we haven't defined. Is that nobody defined, OK, if it's not agriculture, what is cannabis then? So thank you. Yeah, thank you, Jesse. So do we have any other lettuces that want to jump in here? Are there Grawler? We have a Jeffrey. Jeffrey's. Yeah. All residents. Morning, everybody. Can you hear me OK? I'm remote from Burlington today. Yeah. Excellent. So I just want to say that I did send along over email some material. I have some prepared testimony that I'll be reading from. I'll go through it. And I'm happy to take questions. While I'm reading it, please feel free to stop me at any point. I just want to recognize the time here. So I'll try to be quick. But I just want to say thank you. Thank you, everybody, for holding this space. Thank you, chair and committee members, for allowing me to speak. It is good to see everyone once again. Happy New Year to everybody. Welcome back to the State House. And thank you again for taking up the important issue of cannabis regulation. I also want to say a good morning and thank you to my friends and colleagues that spoke before and those that will come after me. For the record, my name is Jeffrey Pizzatello. I am a longtime legacy cannabis cultivator, indoor regenerative farmer. I'm also the executive director of the Vermont Growers Association. We are the state's kind of a trade association. And though we have growers in our name, we represent the entire supply chain with over 80 members ranging from retailers, growers, manufacturers, labs, to non-plant touching businesses, such as security companies and whatnot. VGA is also the founding member of the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition. And we have been in this committee in years past alongside World Vermont and North of Vermont and some of my colleagues in that coalition. That coalition includes the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance, Green Mountain Patients Alliance, North of Vermont, and World of Vermont, respectively. We like to think that collectively we represent the local communities most impacted and those with the greatest stake in the adult use and medical markets. And I will be giving my testimony today as a member of the coalition. We have been in this community years past notably with my colleague Graham of World Vermont, Maddie Kepner, policy director of North of Vermont, names you are likely familiar with. Discussing the issues central to our communities we represent, they remain as such. So I've got a list of about nine priorities that I'm going to go through with just speaking briefly to each of them. Those nine priorities remain allocating 20% of the cannabis excise tax revenue to reinvestment in communities disproportionately harmed in a community reinvestment fund to be administered by members of those communities. 10% of the cannabis excise tax revenue to the community, I'm sorry, to the cannabis business development fund. Also designating all tiers of outdoor cannabis cultivation as agriculture or a designation with similar benefits as agricultural designation as defined Act 158, 2022, which was talked about last year. Some of those exemptions include local control as Jesse had spoken to. Also lifting the current use criteria that is in statute and including agricultural structures in this designation as well as John Rogers and others have spoken to. So you're going to hear a lot of overlap. I'm going to be reinforcing a lot of these points. Mind you, these are top priorities for the industry. So in addition to the agricultural designation that's been talked about, we also seek reasonable direct market access for small cultivators and manufacturers that includes seeds and living plants. The allowance for cultivators to own their own cannabis products that are principally produced by their own cannabis flower. This is another thing that Mr. Rogers had spoken to. We are also seeking an increase to home grow allowances, 10 plants, an increase to the manufacturing tier one annual gross cap. Right now it's $10,000. We are seeking an increase to $100,000. And then lastly to support the medical cannabis policies of our coalition, which were put forth by the Green Mountain Patients Alliance. I have included all of these priorities. Again, to you guys over email. So you should have them available to you either now or after the meeting. So last year we held conversations in multiple committees and with several policymakers, including those in the cannabis control board about the importance of not advancing the adult use market any further without first allocating funds for community reinvestment and a business development fund to help seed, assist and support those in need and most impacted by cannabis prohibition and systemic racism. Even though we are in an agricultural committee today, every decision we make in this industry must be weighed with the considerations of the harms caused by prohibition and the individuals and communities most affected by the so-called war on drugs. And this is why we're asking lawmakers to allocate 30% total of the cannabis excise tax to these two different funds. Moving on, every year VGA surveys the general public, the cannabis industry and its members through what we call our annual policy survey. And I want to impart on you and you've heard this earlier today, direct market access remains a top priority for Vermont licensees and prospective licensees. Some form of direct market access for small cultivators and I want to underscore and manufacturers is not optional. In fact, we proceed this to be a missing component of the adult use market structure. Direct to consumer is a pillar of the marketplace. Looking across the country, it states with more mature markets, they struggle without this missing component to their market structure. And in some states, they're even beginning to bail out their small producers, something that we see as a theme in other agricultural commodity markets. We're trying to avoid that here in Vermont. As a result, we are asking for on-farm and off-farm direct sales allowances for cultivation tiers specifically one through two indoor, one, two, three tier of mixed and one, two, three outdoor. So that is our scale appropriate regulations. And this is to include allowances for all cultivators to sell products manufactured from their plants via wholesale and then those with direct market access to directly be able to sell those manufactured products to the general public as well. Moving over to manufacturers, we are asking for direct sale allowances for manufacturers tier one and two with an annual gross cap of two million of the cannabis products principally produced by that licensee. So that is our scale appropriate approach to the manufacturing license type category similar to what we did with the cultivation license type category. And again, I went through a lot there. I've included all of these details and our actual language that we have for direct market in emails to all of you guys. Moving on from there, in committee last year we also delivered the agricultural designation of outdoor cannabis cultivation in Bill S188 which became Act 158. And the conversation last year struck a compromise on limiting those benefits to tier one cultivators and those in current use. So this year we're returning and as was stated earlier today, we are seeking basically to expand those benefits as outlined in 158 to all outdoor tiers of cultivation and the outer aspects of mixed category as well. So keep in mind our mixed cultivation category is part indoor, part outdoor. We are saying the mixed category should not be exempt from this agricultural light designation. And again, this includes exempting local control as Jesse spoke to, which is very material to not just Charlotte, but several localities across the state right now which I'm happy to dive into in greater detail. In addition to the local control measures lifting the current use criteria and again, including agricultural structures. Not only is this issue of great urgency for the current and prospective licensees but this is effectively posing a barrier to entry to many, many farmers that are looking to participate in this market. And we have actually heard from other state agencies as some of you may be familiar not only is the cannabis control board but I believe also the tax department is in support of these initiatives and rounding out this agricultural designation if only to simplify the tax code to all outdoor tiers of production. If there's no questions moving on Vermont has some of the lowest plant count allowances for adults to grow in their homes which is providing, which is proving problematic for most Vermonters because most Vermonters that choose to grow in their home grow more than two plants. So it's really about being practical. New York state just enacted six plants for their home grow and there's likely to be if you're not aware a medical cannabis bill this year that the CCB is likely supporting that is going to allow for or seek six mature plants. So we're asking lawmakers to increase home grow allowance for all adults to 10 mature plants or at least the number that is going to be in the upcoming medical bill. Bringing this to a close when the CCB first developed its initial rules it defined a tier one manufacturer license to be an at home business. That includes the annual gross cap of 10,000 as I said earlier. So those that have this tier one manufacturer license cannot bring in more than $10,000. They have an annual gross cap. At that time when the board was developing these rules they couldn't foresee the price gouging that was talked about so eloquently by John Rogers and I don't use that word loosely. There are wild expenditures associated with starting an adult use business, banking fees, insurance fees, let alone packaging and other regulations that these individuals have to jump through. And we have found that the tier one manufacturing license is not practical and those that currently have it are operating in the red. Many tier one manufacturers right now are projecting 13,000 to 15,000 minimum in just expenditures. And this is the license with a 10,000 gross cap. So we're asking that this gross cap get adjusted to 200,000. And I just want to note that the CCB is currently undergoing a rules amendment process and they are proposing that this figure get increased to 50,000. We are through the direct feedback of these manufacturers that we are seeking 100,000. Lastly, and just brings to an end. While taking all of these priorities into consideration this year and in discussion today, the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition asks everyone here that we not only weigh your decisions with the consideration of the harms caused by prohibition and individuals in communities most harmed by the so-called war on drugs and systemic racism, but equally by the understanding and recognition of the medical cannabis community, which is an issue that's often not talked about here in Vermont. This is a community, the medical cannabis community that has unique interests and challenges intrinsic to the patients and caregivers of that community. A medical cannabis program currently exists in Vermont that has been largely ignored and as a result has become dilapidated. Losing focus of the interests of those it's intended to serve patients and caregivers. It included my email to the entire committee is the policy platform of the Green Mountain Patients Alliance, though it may not be a primary focus of this conversation today. We wish for you to dig into that and become familiar if you're not already with the medical cannabis program and the reforms that we're seeking this year. That is my prepared testimony. Again, thank you for your time and happy to answer any questions. Yeah, thank you, Jeffrey. Are there questions from the committee? No, no, very helpful. We only have a limited time left and we have James Pepper with us and it would be good to hear from James I, you missed some of the testimony but caught some of the questions or concerns that were raised and then I understand you're redoing some of your rules and regs and what are you doing to upgrade and are any of these questions that were raised this morning? And many of them pertain to that list of 17 things. Are you looking at anything that would address these issues? And I think to get started, I would ask the question of who determines or who did determine that growing hemp in cannabis wasn't an agricultural problem? If you know the answer. Thank you for the lead in there for the record, James Pepper from the chair of the Cannabis Control Board. I had a different job when this bill was being debated but I will say that I know that over the course of a number of years it's been through at least 11 different committees. I know at least four more had kind of jurisdictional input that they provided. This is the bill that eventually was the kind of compromise bill was what it was the phrase is a camel is a horse made from committee. This is like the ultimate camel of a bill and that is one of many things that are in statute that create hardships for our small cultivators. And trying to discern a legislative intent from a 102 page bill that's been voted on hundreds of times is difficult but you wrote a legislative intent one time in the bill and you said that it's the intent of the general assembly to shift as much of the illegal cannabis market into a regulated space and to encourage participation by small local farmers. And a lot of what comes after that counteracts that. A lot of the concerns I'm hearing around insurance requirements and people do pick people are charged a premium for cannabis insurance. There's no admitted insurers in the state or I think in any state I think there's one in California. So these are all surplus line insurers that can charge essentially whatever they want and exclude whatever they want for their coverage. There's a lot of the there's no banking there's no lending there's no lines of credit. And so a lot of these people that are getting in to this business really need support right now to make sure that they're not in a worse position if they have to go out of business because they put all of their own personal money into this. And so I know that this list of 20 items I've been through it with our team at the cannabis board. I've seen the Vermont Growers Association list of legislative asks just given the time I'm not sure that it makes sense for me to go line by line. I can tell you that some of them are regulatory and we can fix some of them are statutory and we can't fix and to your original question I think it was the house that said growing cannabis is not agriculture. I think there's reasons that they did that you know as as compromises and I can't speak. You know I was I was doing a different job at the time I can't speak to it but I can I'd be happy to kind of walk you through what the consequences might be of kind of changing the designation to agriculture and who might you might want to hear from but we our job is not to be an advocacy organization but we do have this mission to support small local farmers and it's exacerbated by the fact that if they go out of business you know they're they're in a worse position. You know now that they're in now that you know they've gotten off the sidelines and shifted into a regulated market we need to support them. Well you know a few issues that you mentioned some were you know not being able to go to a bank in the credit union they'll deal with them but charge them like $1,500 to deal. You know that and I guess I should look in the mirror because a lot of these things if I'd have spent personally as chair of the senate I'd have spent more time on maybe on this cannabis growing and you know it wouldn't have happened or maybe nothing would have happened because we'd have put up such a play but we didn't really, the senate act didn't really weigh in a great deal on this there was mostly judiciary and other committees and I guess we should have been maybe paying more attention but you know like the question of if they grow inside they're low thousand and that buildings happen to be and use value crazy they get down still and you know little things like that if it was if cannabis in some way was classified especially the small block that was classified as ag that issue wouldn't be an issue and so there's little things that you know shouldn't take a lot of effort to fix. I would totally agree with that. There's little things that can have a tremendous impact especially when you think there's no lines of credit. I mean you know if you're running short one month and you don't have the ability to get credit or finance or bank loan you go out of business and I know that the cessation of operations escrow account you know we had a big fear and we didn't require for small cultivators by the way and we tiered it based upon the size of your operation that was to provide people some kind of cushion so that when they're on the verge one month they can pull from some account and then replenish it within 30 days but you know that's one thing that we can do it's not even in our regulations the amounts we can drop those down through guidance you know they're in guidance right now we for all of our regulations that aren't statutory or statutorily required we have the ability as the board to have a waiver and so what we do is kind of in some situations I think with Senator Rogers or John Rogers we said well what's your plan if you're abruptly gonna go out of business and he provided us a plan and we granted him a waiver in order to kind of reduce the initial barrier to entry No they didn't We did not grant you No I asked for one You said we'd be put $2,500 a minute You send the mail That walks the mail Getcha Well I think we're gonna have to Have you that Pardon Have you that Yeah and you know what what goes less scope or change and you know the committee's got has some concerns as well like we have Vita there's a farm lending help and if that was if small growers were considered ag they might be able to get money there I mean there's some issues that we've got to look into in the meantime and if you put together sort of the document to talk about if this is the policy and we're trying to encourage local growers if you put together a document that you could share with people saying here's the things that we think don't match what the policy is or what the outlay statement in the beginning is You know if you look through our rules you gave us the authority you said you know you need to write regulations around environmental impacts regulations around safety, security, environment you know public health, morning labels you need to write all these regulations you're allowed as the Canada's Board to go through line by line and wave any of these regulations for small cultivators but you can't wave statutory requirements and so our rules if you look at our fee waivers I mean sorry not our fee waivers just our waiver lists you can kind of see all the areas where a statute conflicts with the needs of small ones So I think better if we had the list that's in the statute that you think we could change in a certain direction that would And I got to say that the list that you have in front of you deals with a number of them I think what I could do also with this list is Could you refine that for us? Just let you know what we can do without you know and what you would need to do statutorily and you know we don't want to do anything that's going to wreck the program either so you know and none of us are in that business and and I would hope the Board would have an understanding well if you do this you know it's going to really cause an issue over here yeah and and so you know you know the thing that's disturbing to me in hearing the small growers that are local talk about is they've got banking issues they've got insurance issues they've got you know if I go to set up a thousand square feet I'm going to put a hundred thousand dollars into getting ready and I see the fifteen thousand out of state mostly out of state and with the financing that they've got more power that doesn't sound like the policy of we're trying to encourage the little guy to be in front and you know sitting here and being part-time and not doing your job or or trying to get to business I need some help to figure out what we should do sure and where we should concentrate because I'm not real fond of the idea of people with fifteen thousand square feet coming in and driving my little guys out there and my little people out here yeah uh... any other questions from the committee? James? thank you nice to meet you well thanks thanks for coming in James and a lot of thanks to all of you uh... participants growers yeah this has been a good discussion and certainly you raised some real important issues maybe we can do some and some we won't be able to do but it's good to hear from you and know what the major issues are yeah well we really appreciate the committee taking the time to hear us and give us an audience we think this is a real economic development opportunity and we see ourselves becoming like the craft beer industry where people are coming to this state it's going to increase tourism it's going to increase revenue in we think we have a real opportunity here thank you and please reach out use us as a resource if you want us to come back again we're the people on the ground Linda Scott all our contact information please if you want us to come back let us know I know if you're an outdoor grower you weren't growing much the soil's killing hard today I want to say thank you thank you thank you thank you