Committee and that's the one on the state sovereignty and border security and federalism in the bills. The first one is SB 1081 SB 10. Oh, 8 SB 1083. And are you involved with that? I did talk to Silvio about concern. Maybe it really needs to be the state because there's no communication. And he said he would think about that because he had thought about it. Because the litigation if you break it up into the counties, then let's say there's five different counties and we decided to do whatever we do, then they're going to come after the counties. To me, it wear an arm of the state. And if the state would do it, then there would be just one lawsuit. And we would have a group after instead of individual counties. I don't know. I mean, I don't think this county could afford the amount of money. Maybe the big county of Maricopa, the Ena, which they would, but maybe they could afford it. But this county certainly shouldn't. I mean, so you're saying that you're out of the army? No, I just told Silvio she would consider putting it to the state. Where you go to the state instead of the county. But for that reason, I'm doing good. Because if the state took over the natural resource system, then why should the counties have to file the lawsuit? Which should be the state. And she said, she said, I never thought about that. But I just said, well, this little county, you know what? If we're working as a bunch of individuals, it's tough. But if it's one, what's the state as a whole, then it's one lawsuit. And there's a heck of a lot more money there than come and do this to the county. But we're less than seven percent private land. Well, that's another point. Don't these boards in this public land belong to us people, not to us. Well, I mean, if I was hearing them saying that, well, who owns this? People on the land. Doesn't belong to us. Well, we are the people. Should be the government. That's why I understand. And that's why we, the people who are allowed to have their voice through elections. Any other questions? Just along as my understanding, Richard, you were opposed to just, with Richard, you were opposed to not this explanation you gave us here. Who were those two? You know, Silman, I had a discussion. And, you know, in the lounge. And she was with us. But, but, like I say, my concern is, is, as I should be, to the county, I mean, we don't have the money. And this state is going to, and some of the, and I have booked it all, and I'll be honest. But, but some of them conflict, some go to the county, some go to the state. To me, the state ought to, ought to be, we're just an arm of the state. The counties are. And then they ought to be, I mean, I don't want to, I don't want to put you guys in an obligation where you're, you're paying me. We're in law litigation, because then we have to pay. But if it's a state, it's a state as, of the whole has to do the litigation. I just want my property rights protected, all the property rights. That's what I want. And I believe in state, and getting our sovereignty back from the fed, the federal government. I think we're sovereign over them, and I think we should, this would help decide a lot there. And that, that's my point. If you're for that, that's, I have, I got two calls on it. About your opposition to it, actually. And so, I'm going to, I'm going to send him this film right here, and see what they got to say about it. So, film again. And you know, that's the deal, is it right there, right? There was a lot of concern of bringing county for the supervising opposition to it. I went ask, I went ask questions. It shouldn't I ask questions, and if something needs improvement, shouldn't I put my two bins in that zone? That's what he did. And I did. And you know, and so he was very upset. You know, she was, but I have it, and they were able to speak to her sentence. And she hasn't, but you know, that's my issue. Why should we, we can't afford it, guys. We just can't afford it. All right, well, I'd like to say that. Okay, thank you.