This is Vermont edition.

I'm Mikaela Lefrak.

President Trump's administration is urging the Senate to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill act.

Yesterday, the white House said in a statement that the bill would deliver tax relief, generational wealth reform and historic spending cuts.

Meanwhile, Democrats are making the opposite case.

They say this bill would increase the national debt to dangerously high levels, cut vital welfare programs like Medicaid and food stamps, and that the tax cuts proposed in it will mainly benefit the rich.

The bill passed the House, and it's now in the hands of the U.S. Senate to work on.

President Trump wants to see it passed by July 4th.

Joining us today to discuss is Senator Peter Welch.

He's a Democrat that represents who represents Vermont.

He was Vermont's representative to Congress from 2007 to 2023, and now in the Senate.

He currently serves on multiple committees, including agriculture, judiciary, Rules and Administration, and finance.

He joins me today in Vermont public Studio in Colchester.

Senator Welch, it's good to see you.

Thank you.

Senator, let's start with the one big Beautiful Bill act.

It's this massive policy bill, as you well know, that it's making its way through Congress.

And we've heard many Democratic critiques of this bill, particularly around its historic reductions in Medicaid spending.

So I'd like to start there.

Do you expect the Senate version of this bill to differ significantly from the House's in terms of Medicaid cuts?

Well, my hope is that we kill the bill.

I mean, there will be some adjustments that some of my Republican colleagues try to make to mitigate the damage.

But this bill is very damaging to individuals in Vermont.

Very harmful for individuals here.

And I'll go into that.

But it's also really bad for the economy.

And I'll start there.

First of all, Vermonters simply if they're going to get a tax cut out of this deal, you know, the terrorists are increasing costs for them, making it very, very tough for business.

So inflation is going to be going up.

Second, people just don't see that these tax cuts, if they're getting an everyday wage, drawing a salary is going to be in any way meaningful.

What people do see is that interest rates are going up, and that's because of the massive increase in the debt.

And what are we getting for this is that is that we're borrowing money, to rescue ourselves from the financial crisis of 2008 or get out of Covid.

It's a huge, addition to the debt where interest rates are going up.

So your credit card costs will go up.

If you're trying to get a mortgage and they're already high, rates will be higher.

So that from a macroeconomic perspective, is terrible from an actual impact on Vermonters.

We've got like thousands of people who get their health care through Medicaid, and that includes, disabled kids.

And the parents are taking care of those kids in Medicaid.

So the lifeline, they can lose that health care.

The, two out of three, seniors who are in nursing homes are that just paid for by Medicaid, and they can be kicked out of those homes with these cuts.

So, it's very, very damaging there also for my has strongly supported nutrition programs farm to school meals on wheels, school lunch also the Snap program.

It's about six bucks a day for families that are eligible who really makes a difference?

There's going to be billions of dollars cut from both Medicaid, and, the Snap program, meals on Wheels.

And why in the world are we going to do that when the benefit is essentially going to be higher debt and some significant tax cuts to very, very wealthy people, who don't need them and are asking for them in corporations, that are already paying record low, tax rates.

So there are some tax cuts that it seems like would benefit people who are in lower income brackets, such as like no tax on tips and over time, pay.

Would you support any of those provisions if they weren't also part of this massive legislation that also includes things like like cuts for health insurance and food and food assistance?

Well, see, I would absolutely support the lowering the tax rates for working class Vermonters, whether you work in a warehouse, or you work in a, in a restaurant.

I think you should have lower taxes compared to the Elon Musk of the world.

I would, so I would definitely favor that.

But the vast majority of this goes towards the very wealthy and the corporations.

So, it is it is not going to be, in my view, very strongly in my view, it's not going to be beneficial to Vermonters.

And by the way, when you have these cuts like to Medicaid, or the Affordable Care Act, where people get some help paying the premiums if they're in the gig economy, what happens then is that those folks still get sick.

They go to the community hospitals, they're operating on a thin margin right now.

So they're going to be those hospitals who are in jeopardy now financially are going to be very, very, harmed by this because they won't get to pay, they won't get reimbursed for that coverage.

So and then ultimately, what happens is that those folks who are on an employer sponsored health care, those premiums go up in the cost shift that we all know about intensifies.

So from a public health standpoint, this legislation is a very significant threat to the well-being of the health care system we have here in Vermont.

Okay.

So help me understand something here, Senator.

I was reading an article this morning from Politico, and they reported that in the 2024 election, nearly half of Medicaid recipients, 49% voted for President Trump.

And that's compared to 47% for Kamala Harris.

So basically, a lot of people who get Medicaid are Trump supporters.

So so what's going on here is there have been a failure of communication about the stakes of these Medicaid cuts, or is Medicaid potentially less important to Republican voters than Democrats are betting on?

Well, I'd say two things.

First of all, and the question of what's in this bill?

The polling shows that when people are aware of it and it's like a third of the people are aware of it, like 75% are against it, including well over a majority of Republicans.

People want their health care.

And by the way, Trump claims that there's no Medicaid cuts in the bill, which is a total lie.

So people like their Medicaid, and the public awareness is really important.

So that more people are aware that this is a legislation that is going to have a huge impact, as he's made statements saying that Republicans in the Senate should protect Medicaid.

He said that, and it's not true.

This bill takes $700 billion out of the Medicaid program.

So he said, we've seen this with President Trump.

He says it, but it's not true.

But the second thing is a very interesting question.

How is it that folks who will lose Medicaid voted for Trump?

And this is where I think Democrats have to ask themselves that question, because what Trump did do is speak to the discontent that a lot of people have, that the system or the economy is not working for them.

And in fact, I'm in agreement with that.

If you're going paycheck to paycheck, if you have a car breakdown, if you have a kid who needs braces, you're not going to be able to pay your bills.

So there's a lot of economic anxiety and a sense that we do need some significant change.

And Trump, I think, very effectively tapped into that.

His remedies are catastrophic for the well-being of working class Vermonters and Americans.

These tariffs are can increase are in already are increasing our costs.

You know, somebody wants to get a Nintendo Switch to 100 bucks additional cost because of the tariffs.

So, and then if we start losing Medicaid, you're not going to have your own individual health care, but it threatens our hospitals.

So a lot of these proposals that he makes, are going to hurt, not help, even though I think on an emotional level, he was very effective at tapping into people's sense that, hey, we've got to change things.

You brought up Elon Musk a minute ago.

I want to ask you about him.

Because we've seen this this rift between the close ties he's had with President Trump just in, in recent weeks.

And he's also been speaking out about how the this big, beautiful bill could affect the national debt.

Elon Musk says the level of debt would be unsustainable.

So now many Democrats find themselves agreeing with a person who for months they've been saying should not be as close to the president as he is and who is doing harmful things to the federal government.

What do you make of this change?

I mean, there's two things went Musk is just this larger than life figure.

I mean, $400 billion throws his weight around.

He comes in as so-called special assistant, and he then rampages through government, with his doge, like, cutting things where he sends out emails to, individuals.

Been working for 20 years telling him that they haven't been doing a good job and they're gone.

And he demolishes USAID.

We literally have food that is in a warehouse with children on the outside of the doors, and we eat that food.

Is rotting medicine the same way.

So I have real problems with him in his approach and his bullying.

But on the other hand, there's certain positions he takes it I favor.

He's for electric vehicles.

That's a really good thing.

We should be maintaining support for the transition to a clean energy economy.

And his criticism of this bill on the basis of it adding to the debt is absolutely, correct.

And what's so harmful about that debt is we're not getting anything for it other than, funding significant tax cuts.

Like if you're, one of these multimillionaires, you're going to get $450,000.

So I'm with him on that.

And I also see this, debt issue is something that we do have to we do have to address it because a country does have to borrow at times if there's an emergency, if there's a war, but where you're borrowing just to finance a tax cut, that's wrong.

Recently, my colleague Bob Kinzel sat down with your predecessor in the Senate, Senator Patrick Leahy, who retired about two and a half years ago.

And they discussed the budget bill.

And Senator Leahy, I was struck when I was listening to the tape, he had some really strong words about members of the House and Senate who are not opposing President Trump.

Let's take a listen.

And I am worried that the Senate, which can be and should be the conscience of the nation.

Remember, there's only 100, sir, 100 trees that represent over 300 million Americans.

They're responsible to more than just their own careers.

Every country.

And they've got to stand up and say, you can't ignore the law like this.

You can't just do away with the that are congressionally mandated, not presidentially mandated, but congressionally.

If you're not willing to stand up, they get out of the Senate.

Get out of the House.

So, strong words.

But, you know, as a Democrat in the Senate, you know, you and every single other Democrat can vote against this bill, and it can still pass.

So the goal here, it seems, is to try to convince a handful of Republicans, I think you need at least 3 or 4 to to vote no.

That's correct.

How do you do that?

Well, first of all, I'm 100% in agreement with Senator Leahy.

And it's important because what he's standing up for is the separation of powers, in that we have a government that is based on three competing branches.

The executive, the legislative and the judiciary.

And what he is, he's talking about, and I fear, yeah, unfortunately, he's right.

Is Congress is delegating, abdicating its independent authority under article one to the president.

And let me give two examples.

Only Congress can pass tariffs.

That's in the Constitution.

Trump is doing it.

Now he was set back in the courts.

But he is assuming power from the Congress.

In my Republican colleagues, regrettably, are not standing up for the constitutional responsibilities of Congress to do that.

They're abdicating them to the president.

Same way with budgeting.

The Congress passes, has the power of the person, decides what the budget is.

Trump is disregarding that.

Moving money around or taking money away, like from USAID.

So the danger that we have is that you allow the accumulation of almost absolute power in the executive.

And we all know that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And that's where in the Congress that Patrick Leahy went to as a young man in 1974, Republican and Democrats would never have allowed a president, like Nixon to impound money and interfere with the congressional authority.

So that's what he's talking about.

And I agree with him, because it's very painful for me to see, my colleagues essentially just accede to whatever it is the president wants.

Now, on the political side, that's why a big part of my time is how can I encourage, persuade 3 or 4 of my Republican colleagues, for instance, to vote no on this bill?

We got a question about this from a listener named ten who asks, what are you doing to block the reconciliation bill before the Senate?

And another person asked, Carl in Essex asked, how do you choose your wording when you are pushing back against Trump's repressive policies?

Do you consider the choices that resonate in very blue Vermont could end up hurting, hurting their chances in more purple states?

Well, comprehensive way I approach trying to deal with this budget disaster in this bill is by getting the information out in the same thing with tariffs, which I think are having a detrimental impact.

And for my businesses, Vermont farmers and Vermont consumers.

So a lot of what I'll do is have roundtables where we will have people who are going to be affected by the tariffs or be affected by these Medicare cuts, Medicaid cuts, to be able to talk about that and get that information out.

And what I do with my Republican colleagues is I don't give them a lecture, but I'll find out about the community hospital situation and their district or their state, and I'll ask them what's going to happen if this bill passes to your community hospitals.

And then the reality is, the answer is that those hospitals in their districts are going to be really hurt.

So what I'm trying to do is encourage them to have more deference to the needs of the people they represent than they do to the the will of of President Trump.

And those folks are under an immense amount of pressure on the Republican side, to basically do whatever Trump wants.

And that's painful to see, because that what Trump wants to do, particularly in this bill, is going to hurt the people they represent.

This legislation, the so-called big beautiful bill that is going to inflict bipartisan suffering.

It doesn't matter whether you're in a red state or a blue state.

You lose your health care, you lose your community hospital.

You start paying higher tariffs.

You see your colleges that are dependent on some of these grants, and it's integrated and that's getting taken away.

That's going to hurt all of us.

Senator, we got an email just now from Wil in Kraft's brewery who writes that he works at a business in the Northeast Kingdom.

And he says, quote, with the enacting of tariffs by, by Canada on their citizens in response to President Trump's tariffs, we have seen a total drying up of tourists visiting our business in the neck.

Now, a few weeks ago, in late May, you traveled to Ottawa with a bipartisan delegation of force Democratic senators and one Republican, you met with the newly elected Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, and other senior officials there in Canada.

What was the tenor of that conversation?

What were your takeaways?

Well, before I get to that, let me just acknowledge what he said.

Yeah, tourism is drying up.

It has had an enormously negative impact on tourism here in Vermont.

I was with Senator Shaheen.

It's really effective.

New Hampshire and New Hampshire as well.

Kevin Cramer from the Republican from North Dakota is really affected.

The tourism there, and it's all a self-inflicted wound.

Our visit with the Prime Minister.

First of all, it's the first time in five years that a Senate delegation visited with the Canadian premier, and that, I think, is terrible because we have such a close relationship.

We've got to spend more time nurturing it.

Second, Canada expressed to us as we expressed to the Prime Minister, our desire to maintain the historically strong both economic and emotional ties that we've had with one another.

But there was a lot of candor on the part of the prime Minister and the Canadian ministers we met with.

Canada is really upset with the talk about the 51st state and about the governor of Canada.

They felt that there really good friend, the United States was insulting them.

Obviously, the words of President Trump.

So it has made them think that they have to take steps to have some independence so that they're not totally dependent on the US.

On the other hand, they clearly and the Prime Minister stated this, you know, it was music to our ears.

They want to restore the strong relationships we've had, and much of that will depend on whether this tariff regime that the president, President Trump, is pushing gets resolved.

That's having enormously disruptive impacts on their economy.

And they can't be subject to a situation where, already since tariffs began, the president, President Trump, has changed them 22 times.

That's creating enormous disruption in Canada.

And by the way, here as well.

So they want to maintain the relationships with us.

I think most of us in the Senate, all of us probably want to maintain that special relationship we've had with Canada.

And that means that if we're going to have trade negotiations that they should be bipartisan or bilateral discussions rather than whimsical, day to day changes that come out of the white House.

Why do you think there weren't more Republicans as part of this delegation?

And there are so many states with Republican senators that border Canada?

Well, you know, it's it's tough for my Republican colleagues because they get in the crosshairs of President Trump.

And and by the way, recently in until recently, Elon Musk, you know, Trump will take retaliatory action against anybody who he perceives as a foe, not just senators, but he will do that as well.

So they fear, an immense amount of electoral retaliation, including, someone like Elon Musk until recently financing a primary against them.

And, you know, at a certain point, my colleagues on the Republican side have to make a decision, as to whether when what Trump wants to do is really hurting their people, the people they represent, like the folks who do need Medicaid or the folks who have businesses where these tariffs are going to really hurt them.

I my hope is they'll come around and, make a decision that's best for the people they represent, as opposed to just appeasing Trump.

Let's bring in some voices of Vermonters.

Here we have Tina calling in from Clarendon.

Tina, you're on the air.

Go ahead.

Hi.

Thank you.

Thank you for taking my call.

And, Senator Welch, thank you for your work.

My question is, we've heard a lot of specifics on what's going to be cut in the bills of Medicaid and other things.

What we have not heard is any specifics on tax cuts for the wealthy.

I have no clue what you're talking about.

I did when Trump was in for the first term, what those tax cuts entailed.

I'd like to hear more specifics on the tax cuts so I know what the other side of the scale is.

Thank you.

Well, on the multinational corporate tax cuts, that was a big one in the last bill, the if the tax rate theoretically was 35% and it went down to 21%, that was literally trillions of dollars.

And by the way, when the corporations were advocating these are the major multinational corporations, they were asking for a reduction to 25%.

But Trump bit it up and got it down to 21.

I mean, that was really bizarre.

They the Trump gave them more than they were even asking for.

And then on the on the very wealthy, the you know, we're talking about billionaires here.

The tax rate, the effective tax rate went down a couple of points.

But that adds up to real, real money.

Thank you, Tina, for calling in.

Let's go next to Regis, who's in Montreal.

Regis, you're on the air.

Go ahead and.

I have several properties in America.

Florida.

Vermont.

I got a large sailboat.

Plattsburgh, New York.

Good for you.

The border on Saturday.

Yeah, I worked for it.

I didn't, you know, I didn't even have, I believe, yet.

I earned it.

Okay.

Now, the other thing is, I crossed the border, and it was like nobody on a Saturday.

Crickets.

I mean, I could hear crickets in the a local border, and Plattsburgh was dead quiet.

I went out to dinner at the Texas Roadhouse.

Again.

I spoke to the waiter who said we had to shut off shift because there's no more Canadians coming into town.

So it's kind of sad because, you know, I enjoy coming to America, and it's kind of sad coming here.

And, you know, the Canadians are there, right?

Hope things go back to normal.

Another thing.

I hope we get great ahead.

Well, we were the an earlier caller, from the Northeast Kingdom was talking about how tourism is really collapsed, and it has.

And it's really, harmful for our economy, but it's emotionally, it's emotionally painful because if Vermonters who are in the hospitality, industry, they really like, the Canadians being here, then they've gotten to know many of the people who come every year at a certain time.

So that's been a really unfortunate, an impact of the, the trade war in effect.

And, my hope is and that was the point of our trip up to Canada, is that we want to do all we can to get us back on track.

We just.

Did you have one more question for the senator?

I hope the others are like in law.

And I was the governor of New York is trying to push through because I spend a little too much time in America.

Go I go past that six months stay, and I get pulled over into secondary because I overstay my stay.

So this year, I'm going to Paris for a month because I can't stay on my boat, because I go to Florida in the winter, and then I get pulled over into secondary at the border in Vermont, and then they go through my car like I'm a criminal.

And, you know, what?

Are you going?

Do you work here?

No, I don't, I'm just, you know, if you need a ship hand on that trip to Paris, you just give me a call with.

Thank you so much for calling in.

Let's bring in another caller.

Here.

We have, John in Middlesex.

John, you're on the air.

Go ahead.

Hi, Senator Welch, I'm calling.

I wonder how aware you are of the, potential closure of the, Copley, birthing center in Morrisville.

Couple of points.

A question for you.

Are you getting any calls about that?

What are people saying from the the Lamoille County about this closure?

Can you speak to the economic, possibilities and the essential service of that, you know, local hospitals and birthing centers bring to Vermont and and what kind of what kind of weight might the the delegation in Washington play to really deeply examining, the reasons for the closure and finding ways to support essential services for, mothers, children and families in Lemoyne.

Thank you.

John.

Here's the answer on that.

If we pass this big, beautiful bill with the Medicaid cuts that jeopardizes all our community hospitals in Vermont, not just the birthing center, which is very, very popular in much needed, at, at the hospital because we take $700 billion out of Medicaid.

That means that all those individuals who that we're dependent on Medicaid will still get sick, they'll still have babies, they'll go to our community hospitals in the community hospitals won't be paid so that economic pressure that our community hospitals are experiencing will intensify.

We've got to kill this bill.

Is there anything else that that can be done to support something like Copley's Birthing Center, if indeed this bill passes the this really is about Medicaid reimbursement.

It's like you lose insurance.

Let's say you don't have insurance, and you go to the hospital and they end up giving you care and they do it for free.

Well, they can only do that so long.

So what you're seeing in our health care system is that the cuts, in terms of availability of insurance, Medicaid, to some extent, Medicare is threatened, by the way, with this bill because of the debt goes up that would trigger an automatic cut.

The hospitals don't get reimbursed, and they have to make some very, very tough decisions.

And what I'm saying, to John, is that the problems that we have with, our financial well-being of our hospitals is enormously intensified.

If we take $700 billion out of Medicaid.

Thank you, John, for calling in.

Collette is in Hardwick.

Call it.

Go ahead and.

I. Hello?

Hey.

Senator, I just wanted to, hit back on the, issue of the Republicans and their inaction.

And especially on this topic that we're talking about right now, having to do with resources for the lower income people.

And I'm old enough to remember, I believe that it used to be the Republican argument in terms of, meeting the needs of lower income people, that it was the best of methods would be to support programs like that earned income credit and the title child Tax credit.

And, even, you know, discussions about, giving aid for Medicaid and that sort of thing.

But that was the correct response to helping the lower income people.

And now it seems like the Republicans have totally forgotten that.

And that they're they're coming out against these programs and calling, Democrats.

And like, you know, they're the party of the welfare state.

They're the party.

We are.

And I'm going to say I'm I'm hard core born and bred Democrat because of the issues of social justice.

And, you know, one thing like, Health care for all.

And that used to be a debate that happened among the Democrats.

And the Republicans response was, oh, it's not that we don't hear it.

So we just want to do it with these different programs.

Call it what I'm noticing.

You're calling out this kind of shift in the messaging of the political parties when it comes to standing up for, for lower income Americans.

Well, but what Collette said is also true.

There's been a lot of Republican support for, like, the earned income tax credit.

Right.

There was a lot of support for the child tax credit.

And like to see that continue.

What you see is things are much different with Donald Trump because he's saying, on the one hand, don't mess with Medicaid, and the other hand, he's promoting the big beautiful bill that will take $700 billion out of Medicaid.

So you've got this dedication that Trump has to talk like he wants to maintain that very important Medicaid program when the bill he's demanding be passed cuts Medicaid by $700 billion, and it is to pay for tax cuts to do, by and large, go to very, very wealthy people.

So that's an upside down discussion.

And, you know, the reality is we should have a better tax system.

You know, Elon Musk for instance, stops being Social Security like in the first minute of the new economic year, whereas everyday Vermonters pay, 7%, close to 7% on every dollar they earn throughout the entire year.

We should have tax system that gives some relief to, hardworking paycheck to paycheck folks.

And we shouldn't be giving more tax cuts to very, very, profitable corporations.

And we should not certainly be giving tax cuts that are going to benefit the billionaires.

Well, thank you so much for calling in.

I want to ask you about some recent news happened at the end of the week last week, around broadband, which has long been an issue that you have been very outspoken on getting, more broadband access for Vermonters.

Vermont is expecting to get more than $220 million for broadband buildout under this Biden era program called Bid.

And on Friday, the feds just released new rules for this grant program.

It's been under review for the past couple of months.

Some states, including Vermont, have continued to advance this broadband expansion work during that review process.

Do you know yet how these new rules will affect Vermont's broadband expansion?

Workers at some of you, your office is actively reviewing, we are actively reviewing it, and I'm actively worried, okay, we have to have broadband.

You have to have high speed internet in every part of Vermont in order for Vermonters to have the opportunity to be part of the economy and we've made progress with the IRC, the, the communication union districts that, the legislature set up to give some local instruments, some local control and local ability to implement it also takes money to wire it.

So we've been making progress.

But this speed money would be really essential to us being successful in the short term.

And what we're seeing with the Trump administration is they've been clawing back money that was appropriated by Congress sometimes for broadband, oftentimes for other infrastructure projects around the country, including clean energy projects.

That are going to be would be really helpful to communities.

And this goes back to a point that Senator Leahy was making.

Congress shouldn't acquiesce to this because these appropriations were made by Congress.

It's the constitutional authority of Congress to do that.

And an executive doesn't have the unilateral authority to claw those back when Congress has appropriated that that funding in in Congress passed, even when I went there, it was a the Republicans and Democrats wouldn't stand for a president of either party encroaching on the constitutional authority and responsibility of the legislative branch.

We've got to stick up for the people.

One more question for you, Senator, that I know you have a flight to catch to Washington to do some of this important work you're talking about.

Last fall, Vermont's entire delegation sent a letter to FEMA calling for long term structural reform.

You also called for an audit of FEMA's administrative costs and this reduction of bureaucratic inefficiency cases, which were called out in a big Vermont public investigation that came out late last summer.

What is the status of that effort?

And is it still a priority for you?

It's still a priority, and that is very much being contested.

My view is that in it, from our experience, the floods in 2023 and 2024, FEMA was really good in the immediate aftermath, but in the long term recovery, it got bureaucratic and my approach was that we had to give much more local control to the states and to the communities about the buildup and give them decision making authority and access to the funds.

Sounds a bit like a douche.

Message.

There, reducing, reducing inefficiencies at the federal level.

All of us are favor of getting rid of inefficiencies.

But what those did is they just destroyed things, all right.

They didn't do a plan or that's not what you're saying.

You're not saying, let's get rid of.

No, I'm saying let's have local control.

And the follow through in a lot of my Republican colleagues are totally in agreement with me on that.

You know, if you're talking about, should you have an 18 inch culvert or a nine inch culvert?

I trust the select board.

Okay.

To make that decision.

On the other hand, what the Trump administration is talking about in Kristi Noem, is talking about the head of Homeland Security is abolishing FEMA.

And so what they're literally talking about is returning responsibility to the states to recover from these catastrophic storms that are getting more frequent and more violent.

In no state has the capacity, you know, after Irene in 2011, we had billions of dollars of damage after the floods of 2023, in July and then July in 2024, a state, whether it's us with flooding, whether it's Texas with or California with wildfires or North Carolina with that, hurricane, you need federal help.

And we our congressional delegation has always supported funding for that emergency relief to others, when their time comes.

So we need that FEMA organization, but we also need and that's why I'm pushing hard for FEMA reform to make it, to make it more efficient.

Senator Walsh, you're going to have to take our caller this boat to get to Washington off, and I'll let you get to the airport.

Senator, thank you so much for your time today.

Thank you very much.