Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Okay. Here we go. We're live now.

[Cina "Katie" McFadden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: K. Cina McFadden, Office of Legislative Council. So we were discussing contingency effective dates. You can absolutely do a contingency effective dates, and we have done them before. I tend to think that we need to be extremely thoughtful when we're doing a contingency effective date. Words matter. And if we don't know that the contingency has taken effect, that creates a lot of confusion for everybody, for for people in the field, for attorneys, for the AGO's office that's trying to enforce it. So some of the concerns that I'm sort of thinking through are if you are what is the exact contingency that is occurring to trigger the effect of your provision? Is it that they also another state enacts a provision that regulates infant formula in the same way that Vermont does in this bill. What if they define infant formula differently? So we're not exactly comparing apples to apples. Or what if the regulation is slightly different than the model that you're putting into place? So I think those are just questions that we need to think through when we're putting a contingency in place so that somebody can affirmatively say, yes, this contingency has been met. So I think the words and the contingency become very important. And I'll just add to that. One thing I like in a contingency is that there's a point person or somebody who is certifying that this has happened instead of leaving it up to everybody to guess, has the contingency been met? So in other bills, I've had the commissioner of health certifying to the speaker and to the pro tem and issuing a written statement posted on web sites that this contingency has been met. And then there's sort of like a clear definitive statement that, yes, we have achieved the contingency. So those that's, I guess, some something to think through for you.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Thank you. Representative Nelson. Should we it sounds like it's gonna take lodge council some time to work on this and probably won't get it done in the next sixteen hours or six hours. I'm I'm cutting you I'm trying to cut you some breaking. Should we pass out a committee right now a clean bill and give alleged counsel a chance to work on this? And if it can be done for the floor, we can amend it there, or we could bring it to the senate downstairs. Those are both possibilities. Yep.

[Cina "Katie" McFadden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If this is something the committee really wants to do, I can go to another room and I can sit down and think through and do it. It won't take ten minutes. It will take me a few minutes to think it through, and I'll need a little bit more guidance about what specifically is it about the baby formula statutes in other states that would trigger your statute taking effect.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Right. So thought general thoughts before we get into go go ahead, John.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Just my general thought would be we need to maybe find a way to word it so that it doesn't have to be exactly the same the exact same definition, but close enough.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Okay. How to do that.

[Cina "Katie" McFadden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you would probably want some language substantially similar, something like that. But whoever is your point person for making the call that the contingency is met, you're giving you're sort of delegating them the authority of interpreting what substantially similar means. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Lipsky.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Thank you. I appreciate your input and your ability. I would prefer to vote on this as it is without baby formula and would certainly be open to an amendment from the House floor or sending an amendment to the Senate, but I'm learning not to be so excited about being the first in the nation to do something that hasn't worked out too well in other bills and buildings, so that's where I stand.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you. Yeah, Representative Burke? Incredible with Lipsky on that.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: And I will add that if you are going go with the original, I think there was, we need to change the date at least.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So yeah, we would not just be doing the as introduced, but we'd be, I'll say in a minute, but I think we'd doing, I wanna hear if anybody else has any feelings on this yet. John?

[Rep. John O'Brien]: My thoughts are that if we bumped it out one year to 2029, somebody is gonna We know by that point, hopefully the FDA will have weighed in and some other state will probably

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: be taking this up. So I don't feel necessarily the need for a contingency to vote for it. But I could just as well, I agree with Jed, I could just as well just vote for baby food and work on it. Like John said, come back next year and work on it. Are you gonna make a motion?

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: No. Okay. Go ahead. Think you want me to make a motion? No. I just, one thing that just occurred to me that would be of concern is that if we wanted to do this, we really need to look at when the effective date is and push it out. And we need to look at the substantially, you know, this language we're talking about. If this goes to the floor, I think it's pretty likely that someone's gonna come up with an amendment just to add formula. And I think that many members will find that simple addition very attractive. And we could end up getting it in there with no extension date and nothing about other states. I just feeling that this is something that it's people are gonna be passionate about and there might be the votes out there to pass it. And then we don't get the language that we need. One concern Well, I

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we would have, as a committee, the opportunity to weigh in on that amendment and presumably work with somebody who might have that interest. I'm gonna suggest that we ask Katie to not go back and spend all the time it would take to do that, but to take the most recent draft, leave all the changes that are in there with the exception of the big one that removed the exemption for formula and put that exemption back in. And then we will, as others have suggested, have the opportunity to either amend it ourselves, that's the committee's interest. But in the interest of time here, I'm gonna propose that we do that. And then we can have you send us that new draft and then we can vote that out.

[Cina "Katie" McFadden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm happy to do that with me. I wanna clarify that I understand what you would like. So you would like essentially section two of the bill removed that adds infant formula at a later date.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yes. Okay. I think that's what it boils down to. And then we so we had made some other changes in the most recent draft that could stay.

[Cina "Katie" McFadden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. I can do that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Right, I don't see anybody scowling too much at that suggestion. So I think we're gonna go ahead and have you do that, thank you, Katie. Okay. All right, let's see. What other lawyers do you have in the room?

[Rep. John O'Brien]: I have a little sign here.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Who isn't a lawyer?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Bradley, I think that you've got three bills that you've been working on, and I'm gonna have you come up, we'll talk about the Perigot bill first. So this is 739739? Yes. Yep. H739. Yep.

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. The showman office of legislative council. Today, we'll be talking about h seven thirty nine amendments to or Fairhope bill. And I'll share my screen to put the language up because there has something there have been things that have changed. This is draft 3.3.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That's on our page. Yep. All right. And just so before Bradley starts through, I've talked to Bradley. I've emailed Bradley. Bradley has emailed me back often well after dark. So I appreciate your attention on all of these bills. And there's some new language here that reflects conversations that we were having yesterday that weren't necessarily conclusive. So we need to I'm not sure that we're at the final point, but we may be. So let's see what we have here.

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The first thing I just wanted to point out is that we changed the word kills to defoliates, defoliates all vegetation to touch us in the findings. And just The findings. In the findings. Okay. And so let's get down to the language. So there was discussion of adding, a different chemical comp compound for paraquat, paraquat dimethyl sulfate. The first two paraquat compounds that have been in the bill from the beginning are more of the focus of the EPA. And then this third one is not necessarily emerging. It's just a different name for, paraquat compounds. And and so what this bill does is add a third compound, and then it also adds in a catchall, or any known as paraquat with the chemical name and all salts thereof. And so that is meant to kind of capture anything that'd be known as paraquat using that chemical compound. Because you'll notice this chemical compound, I'll highlight it here so you see it on the screen, but you'll notice that chemical compound is the same, or or similar, for a lot of the for each of these. And so it's it's an indicator of of paraquat. And so this catch all is meant to just catch other forms of paraquat.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Why don't we go through the whole thing, then we'll take questions.

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Another difference is that we changed the language within fruit producing tree orchards only on or before 07/01/2030. The date I received that information from represent our chair Durfee here. There's two things I think there, Bradley. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the date, but also within fruit producing tree orchards as new language. That is. Just remind us what was there before? It was upon orchard trees and then a blank for the dates. Okay. So rather than saying on trees, it's now within the orchards.

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is correct. That is correct.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: You should think. Let's go through the whole thing and then we'll come back to questions.

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And we added some information about the permit. So a written exemption order under the subsections shall be not shall not be valid for more than three years or until 07/01/2030, whichever comes first. So if you apply for a permit under this section, you get it for three years. If you apply for a permit under this section on 07/01/2029, it's only good for one year, because the, the ban will have passed by that. And then the permit itself should specify the uses and crops or plants to which the the permit applies, the date the permit takes effect, the permit's duration, and the permit's geographic scope, which might include specific farms, fields, or properties. So the permit itself describes what the the allowable uses. And and those were the changes. I didn't make changes to the reporting or the study section other than to add in this reference to a date. So in the report section, we're asking the agricultural innovation board to report on alternatives to the pesticide paraquat in addition to using the pesto quat pesticides. Recommendations for practices to reduce the use of paraquat and alternatives to using Paraquat. And then we're asking the board to give recommendations and alternatives in the event Paraquat becomes unavailable due to regulatory commercial action before the Vermont ban comes into place. And currently, the Vermont ban is set for the first twenty thirty. And the effective date of the bill is 07/01/2026.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So thank you, Bradley. So I saw a number of hands with maybe some questions about the meaning of these changes or existing. John, you're first.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Yeah, just a couple of quick ones. And I don't even know if you'll know, Bradley, but Richard's memo from Syngenta mentioned the Gramoxone family. And I just wondered if Gramoxone, say, it shows up in all those three different paraquat

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: molecular just

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not familiar with the kind of what you're talking about.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Amoxicillin is the brand name. The brand name, yes. Pugenta makes paraquat, it's the most popular brand name. I just didn't know. I can find out, I guess. So these are

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Paraquat. Right? And then so and so the chemicals known as Paraquat include these CAS registry numbers, And, you'll see them here. And each of these registry numbers, when you pull that information up on the EPA or a third party website, you'll pull up, different chemical names for this paraquat. And so representative Durfee and I had a little bit of a back and forth today because we're trying to land on which one of those, names to use because a lot of those names are synonymous and a lot of those chemical names are the same. And so what an individual should do is you look at the actual chemical name on the bottle or on the it's not necessarily bottle, right? But on the packaging of the pest icide. And you'll look at the chemical name, and then you can look up that chemical name to determine whether or not it fits into one of these categories. And so I'm not familiar with that specific brand off the top of my head, but that's how you would find that information.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The other question was, did we take out the sort of benthic culture? Yeah. So right now it's just orchard. Okay. Yes. It's just orchard now. And just to I guess this is probably obvious, but the intent here on the four different types of one, two, three, four was just to be sure that we were capturing all different pair of us. And we can't tell really one from the other.

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And catch all is meant to kind of catch the different chemical names and different chemical forms that paraquat can come in. And the first part of the chemical name is the ion And then the science gets beyond me at that point. But paraquat itself is largely defined by this ion. And so the catchall is kind of meant to collect that information, and then so different variants of that ion can be included in that catchall phrase.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Right. Representative Bartholomew. Thank you, Bradley.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Is it intentional here on page four, line 19, where we have tree in there, that it can only be used on trees, producing trees? Tree orchards.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Is that where you are? Yes.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Yes. So can't be used on grapevines, can't be used on blueberries. Tree orchards.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. That was that was intentional. Okay. Yeah. But that was the one exception.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Representative Burtt. January 1 be a better date, July 1.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: 01/01/2031?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: I would I would pay this 2031. And so that's not mid growing season. He's on page six line four. There's no and then the enactment date should be probably 01/01/2026. Where's the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: first reference to that date, Greg? Because I know there's this January.

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is on page four line 20 is the first reference to the date. Okay. And and that's the primary reference. That's, the the ban. And then the remaining references are on page five, line four. It's talking about the validity of the permit, And then the third reference to that date is on page six line two. It's talking about instructing the agricultural innovation board. Yes. Okay. So that's I'm specifically talking about on page four line 20,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: January 1, to '31 and then Page five, length four. And the enactment, this act shall take effect. Would do well, it depends

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: on what when what are

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: the other dates in here?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: If you're bumping it six months, it'd be January 1, you're

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: I would do 01/01/2027 because they have to have a permitting process in place and growers have to be aware of it. And it would be not during the growing season. Yep. July and July is probably not a great idea to have something

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: for Okay. So suggestion. Hold that suggestion. Other questions about the meaning of the words?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I I was trying to look things up real quick. I wish we had director here because he he sleeps. He dreams those names in the world just to make sure we had the exact right nomenclature up there. Well, I I don't know if this suffices to call it all paraquat or if you need to get into all the chemical names. I saw there was a dichloride on there and stuff. John O'Brien will be reporting this bill if we pass it out. Right? So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I could ask Steve. Yeah. You and then we could there's another thing where we could just do a quick fix if we needed to.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. We do a quick Yeah. Amendment.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. That's all.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: The only other, you know, we have a study in here, right, where we're looking for recommendations for alternatives to use paraquat for farmers. If they don't find, if they come back and say, we haven't found a good alternative, but we still have the date of, in here it's 07/01/2031,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: no more permits can be issued. I

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: know the intention of what we're trying to do with this bill, but at the same time, I think if our state comes back with no answers for fruit tree growers and it's still available on the market in The US, I'd be more apt to have a little bit of language in here that says that, you know, something that would extend

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: of a

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: permitting

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: time

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: based on whether or not a viable system has been found by the Ag Innovation Board that your tree growers can work with. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So another suggestion.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I don't know how how complicated does

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: that help? Anybody with cancel?

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We we need to get some more kind of kinda suss it out suss out some more details there.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So we can figure out what we could do. I wanted to just see before we talk about policy, these policy ideas or others, whether anybody has any other questions about what we have on the page and what it would mean, what the implications are. So we thank you then, Bradley, for that. Stacy, can

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. I, if I may? Yes. So if the committee does change the effective date of the bill, I would recommend two effective dates if you want to keep the study in because or change the date the study is due. The study is currently due 01/15/2027. And so the effective date of the bill is 01/01/2027. That's only fifteen days that they have. And so just just to kinda keep that in mind when you're changing effect

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: of So the to address the concern, I think we would like to keep the study presumably happening. But to address the concern there, is there a way to draft it so that So

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we could have the study be effective like Section E, effective on passage, and the rest of the bill effective at some other date, but it's possible. Just

[Rep. John O'Brien]: quickly, do bands stay in place even if

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the product is no longer commercially for sale? Yes. Means you can't go to Mexico and get it. I know that our clerk has another obligation that he may need to be for shortly. So just to move things along, so just get a sense of the committee, maybe a show of hands on the idea of moving all of the July to 01/01/2031. How many people would be in favor of that? Okay, who is not in favor of that?

[Rep. John O'Brien]: I was thinking, can we push the first date out and the second date back? You know, make it sooner to do 01/01/2027 and then 01/01/2030?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'm not sure that I understand what So which date you're

[Rep. John O'Brien]: talking about. Effective the first one, it would be, you know, the when when passage comes. That date the final date would be pushed out to 01/01/2027. And the final ban figure would be 01/01/2030.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So actually six months sooner. Okay. So I think the the we're not talking about the enactment date here. We're just talking about the changing the 2030 date to a different date. Alright. Well, just move that up for six months from this actually, instead of making it three and a half, make it. So you'd make it 01/01/2030? Right. Okay.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: All right. Is that what you're-

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: That's kind of a compromise, what John just said. It's halfway between. It's making one longer and one shorter in terms of the implementation dates. I'm okay with that.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Which one should work?

[Rep. John O'Brien]: At the very end, it

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: says what? Can you tell us which page you're on, John?

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The

[Rep. John O'Brien]: actual take effect on July January 1.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, we're leaving that the way it is, but we're adding a different effective date for the so that's the effective date for the report, the study. And then for the rest of it, it would take effect on 01/01/2027.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Well, then push the January 15 to 2028, and

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: then the last one on the ban actually goes into effect. I think we want the report right away as soon as possible. So that's That's possible, you think, as Greg was saying, maybe that's too soon.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: So I was suggesting that this act not take effect until 01/01/2027 because it's putting it Again, you have to give time for the agency to come up with a permitting process, right? Yep. So and then it gets it, so it's not in the middle of the growing season. Yep. So that would be so 01/01/2027 is when it

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: would be active. And just let me stop you there for a second, Greg. So so yes, that all makes sense to me anyway. Mhmm. But in order to have the report available to the legislature on 01/15/2027, we would need to have an effective date just of the report section of this date. So we would have two effective dates that Bradley just suggested. So

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: there would be an effective date for the report, an effective date for the bill, and then the ban date where the pesticide itself becomes banned. And so those are three different dates that are the important ones of this bill.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. I think the one that you were Partly what you were suggesting was that it would be more practical to have the ban take effect on the January 1 than just because of the growing season than the July 1. I think that makes sense. Question is, is that the 01/01/2030 or 2031 or some other year.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: You talking about the That's the phase out completely, right? Yes. I would personally prefer to see that be 01/01/2031, growers have three years to adopt a different system. It could be October, 11/01/2030. Or November after the growing season.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: And then after the growing season. It'll be October 1.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: I don't know. You brought three all that done. Nobody's spraying it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So okay. So 11/01/2030. Yeah.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: And are you saying November 1 for the 11/01/2026 for starting?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Noted for implementation of the plan. I don't see what Yeah.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. And the implementation of the special permit would be 11/01/2026. Fine.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: But me as long as

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: it's after this. Yeah. Get you get you through and get you time to give the agency time to to be ready for that. You'll apply for it probably whenever. Bradley, are you

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: following that? Because I I see nodding heads. And

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the pesticide will be banned 11/01/2030.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yeah.

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Effective date of this bill will be 11/01/2026. And then the effective date for the study would be on passage.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Yes. For July 1. Yeah. Don't we also have to change the permit time then for the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Is there another date there? Yeah. We'd have

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to change the we'd have to change the other corresponding dates that refer to the date of the ban. But I would change those as well.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Permit up until yeah. Yeah. Okay. Alright.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: I didn't catch that. There's one other date. Yes. On or before 01/15/2027.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Think we want to keep that.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Well, there's not going be a whole lot to report on if started in November 1. So we're not I don't know.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, what we're asking the board here to do to gather information that it has from other sources from research around the globe and Got it. Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Gerfee, Jed. Jared, is this gonna be favorable with amendment or favor?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: This will be favorable this is a is a committee bill. So it's, I think, none of the above there, that's a committee bill.

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is not a committee bill. This is

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: an amendment. Sorry, okay. Yeah, absolutely right. Favorable with amendment. Right. There's something different. It's a short term. Chair,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: is there any opportunity that I would have to bring forth the suggestion I had earlier about if the agricultural innovation work comes back with a viable solution, This could be similar. Could I could we do a committee amendment potentially? Is that something you'd be willing to look at?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, let's see what people think.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Representative Bartholomew. You'd be obligated to look at any amendment that the member thinks.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. You could have a

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: simple Or or is there any interest in it?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Well, you could you could have an amendment drawn up with no feasible solutions found. They could continue by special permit. That I mean, that's one way to word it. Yeah. And it you know, like, and, you know, and and by the time this works through, we'll know who, what, where, when. You know? You know what I'm saying? You know, with special permits, they'll have hired data. I'm going to suggest that I think we want to

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: try and be accommodating and flexible. Also vary a little bit that we're giving the board or the agency more flexibility or leeway than we might want to. What this is saying essentially is it's going to be phased out. Our growers need to know what they can do when it's phased out or when it stopped being available, which could be tomorrow. And give them the best information you can in order to ensure that they're doing that and not coming back with, we don't think there's a good solution. That sort of ties our hands then, in theory. So I think that as we can certainly entertain this, but I just brought a caution about undermining the intent of having the ban. Those are your two policy thoughts, right? Greg, I think the dates and then that. Yeah. Does anybody else have a policy suggestion? In that case, maybe we should move that. We ask Bradley to make those changes to the dates, which would be a new draft number. And can you tell us what that draft number will be, Bradley? And then we'll Sure. Point one. Point one. Okay. Alright. So do we have a motion then to amend the bill using draft 4.1? I'll move. Alright. Representative Lipsky, are there is there any other discussion? Alright. The clerk can call it roll.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: John Bartholomew, you have your vote? Yes. Michelle Bos-Lun?

[Cina "Katie" McFadden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Jack Brigham? Yes. Gregory Greg Burtt?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yes.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Jed Lipsky? Yes. Richard Nelson? Yep. Yes. John O'Brien? Yes. Chairman David Durfee? Yes. Vote is eight zero zero, and

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the fourth is to Albrecht O'Brien. Albrecht O'Brien, yep. And the time is 04:27. All right, thank you everybody. And representative Lipsky's absence will need be the assistant clerk. Ranking member will take on that.

[Cina "Katie" McFadden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's like the ranking member. Thank

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: you and my Do you follow him? Do you have an answer in this part? Yeah, but I didn't want to use it.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: It's pretty

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: easy to

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: set up that meeting's draft. We sent it to rep O'Brien.

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so I'm just thinking of the dates as we discussed. Is that right?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Medium. Senator rep O'Brien will review the dates with me and to make sure that Okay.

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And you still need me, you want me to talk about, we're moving on to rodenticides and things?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So let's move on to the miscellaneous egg bill. Okay. Might be a rearranging of things on the agenda. Patricia, we're gonna talk next about the miscellaneous ag bill. And what is the miscellaneous ag bill, the housekeeping bill? We've got, at the moment, I think three sections in this draft. The first has to do, and we haven't spent any time on this other than the very beginning when we first looked at it. The agency proposed that we make some changes to water quality training rules. They've been in the RAPs for a long time. The suggestion was that it wasn't necessary to require every year that this training take place for farmers. ANR reviewed this language, and they were willing to come and testify it. But they said, we don't have any concerns about it. So I told them that under the circumstances, I didn't think it was necessary to have them in. Second part is the part that we went over the other day with changes to non sewage solid waste on farms. And again, originally, the agency had proposed language. And in this case, ANR had quite a lot to say. And they worked with the agency of agriculture to come up with some changes. And those changes we went over the other day, they're incorporated into this draft. That's the second piece. And then the third piece has to do with the unit pricing that we heard about yesterday and incorporation of digital price tags. And we heard testimony after the agency. We heard testimony from the Grocers Association with some concerns. What this draft shows is everything that the agency proposed there with the exception of the change in the So size of it goes back to the existing statute there. I think that this is something we should just take some more. Personally, I feel like we should take some more testimony before we make a change that affects possibly our Vermont retailers in a way that they were uncomfortable, that they expressed being uncomfortable with or disagreeing with. So that's what this draft shows. And do you want to just walk through that last section, Bradley? So this

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is the change. And so previously, it's well, what what it previously said? Previously, was two stores at 6,000 feet or more. So an establishment that has two or fewer stores with less than 6,000 square feet of retail estate. This one says at a retail store with less than 7,000 square feet of floor space dedicated to sale consumer commodities. 6.2. This is draft 6.2.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That's what's on the screen now? Yes. Okay. Thanks.

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then the rest of this is just conforming the language to some of the definitional changes and then some just Grammar changes. Our editors did make just some more grammar changes. And so this exception shall not apply to retail establishments of a company having two or more sales locations as parts of the company.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: But that's existing law. Yes. Yes.

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so and that is existing law.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Those changes, they're just cleaning up. So instead of exception, it says exemption. Of the sales agencies or instrumentalities, which is kind of archaic maybe. It says retail is we're changing that to retail. Okay.

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then the rest of the section, there was just some slight just grammar edits and things. But we did change because this part this top section says the unit price requirements of this chapter shall not apply to sales of consumer commod or shall not apply to consumer commodity sales as follows at a retail store when different brands or products are commingled, when commodities are individually marked for clearance or sale tag, and so forth. So we added the word when to a lot of these sections, and then we made section b a different subsection because it talks about the total selling price requirements of this chapter, Sean, on applying all items in retail establishment have the same total selling price. So just some just minor grammatical changes to this section, and then but it's taking the language back to in section one, a one here, it's taken the language back to what it was or

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: to the statute. Alright. Questions for Bradley about the these changes or things that were there before. Policy questions or concerns or suggestions.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Is this '20 six-seven 70? Yeah. And would that be what I write down? Yes.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: And it is version 6.2. 6.2. Is this a line Go ahead, Jed. Is the language that was objected to still in this draft or not?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: No. No, okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, no. So the, well, this is current law with technical grammatical changes. Because some of

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the definitions in the section changed, so we're just conforming to the definitions, but it's just the the thrust is the same.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Representative Burtt.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Make sure I'm clear. This this would mean that if you have two or more locations, then you would have to have unit price requirements.

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So the unit price the unit price requirements of this chapter shall not apply to retail established so this section, there's a couple of knots here, so let me just go through it. But the unit price requirements in this chapter shall not apply to consumer commodity sales as follows. At a retail store with less than 7,000 square feet of floor space dedicated to consumer commodities. So this is another not here. So this exception shall not apply to retail establishments of a company having two or more sales locations as parts of that company. So so if you have two or more sales locations as part of that company, the exemption from unit price requirements, this chapter does not apply.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So if you have two or more that

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: are less than 7,000 square feet?

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so, the exemption for less than 7,000 square feet of sales space only applies, if you have the the one location. But if you have a retail establishment of having two or more sales locations as part of that company, then the exemption then you do have to apply for the enterprise requirements.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Doesn't matter what your square footage is.

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is correct. That is correct. It is it is now that we're explaining it, it is a little confusing because there's two knots that are going on, but that is correct.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Representative Bartholomew, what page are you on? I'm on page 14. Yeah.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: So if you had two, so would that mean that the Crasberry Jenny, there's they have a store in Crasberry that's small. They have an even smaller store up in Albany. Would that require them to have unit pricing on at both locations then because they have two stores?

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. They have two or more sales locations as part of our same company, then you would have to apply.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Are they the same business?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That's a pretty separate is it current current law?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. That that's correct that's current law now. Yeah. Oh, alright. Well

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: He said nobody's following it. Probably no

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: one will be following it again after we're running.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, that we can have that conversation. Okay.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Alright. Thank you, chair. Do I title this committee bill or I title this

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: working groups, house, agriculture bills? Yeah. Use that if you use that code, that o o Set260770, that should be enough. Okay. Title. Yeah. Representative Birx might want to be the reporter in this run. She's been left out as filorama here.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: I bet you're good.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: There are more to go. It's very good. I'll give you a suite of pills. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we then, I think, probably ready to hear a motion to accept this draft, which is 6.2. So moved. All right. Thank you, representative Nelson. And is there any other discussion? Alright. The clerk may call the vote. John O'Brien. Yes.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Michelle Bos-Lun.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Yes.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Jack Bringham. Yes. Gregory Greg Burtt. Yes. Jed Lipsky is not here. Richard Nelson. Yes. John O'Brien. Yes. Chair David Durfee. Yes. Alright. Thank you. The tally is seven zero one. Alright. So in this case, it's

[Bradley (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: it's a committee bill. Greg, I will have to send it to the drafting staff, so you don't have to copy you so you know about it, but you don't have to

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: do anything tonight with it. In CCBF. Yes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Good. Yes. Just put it there, but it's not our point. Yeah. Alright. Let's see. Ellen is not here. I think we're going have Katie come up next so we can dispense with that. Dispense.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: So if our bill has already been voted on, should I send that to the clerk now?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: You have the iteration. Yes, you can do that anytime. Probably good idea.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Okay. I'm gonna do that. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: And where would we find

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the past bills now? Forward the draft? Where would we find the

[Rep. John O'Brien]: The bills we have passed so far, if

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I was sending Paraguay to the House of Clerk. Oh, Bradley's gonna send it to you. Bradley will send you the draft.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Hi. Hi again. So we sent

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: you away a few minutes ago. We asked you to make some changes a few minutes ago.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: We did. I have

[Cina "Katie" McFadden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a draft for you. Okay. So here's 4.1. We have some changes that you made this morning and then the change you just asked me to make. So section one is the new section that you're creating. Highlighted change in D1 without requiring the provision of a universal product code or proof of purchase. You removed the lot number, so that could be something that is requested. The next change in subdivision what is this? D. D 2 still. We just flipped the order. Instead of Vermont consumer, a consumer in Vermont. And then you asked me to remove section two of the bill. So now we just have an effective date. This actually will take effect on 01/01/2027. So this continues to exclude in the definition of baby food product infant formula.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think that's what we asked you to do. Thank you. Does anybody think differently? Regardless of how you feel about it, does anybody think Katie didn't get what we asked her to do?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Katie did what she was asked.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Right there, line eight right by her cursor should that say QR code to a web page? Or no, that's a URL to a web page for the FDA's website that includes the guidelines. Can you bump

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: up there, Katie, just so we see what we're talking about?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Okay, there's the QR code. Okay, thank

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: you. Good.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: All right. Yeah, I'm

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: fine. Okay. All right. So I don't know whether we rather than just to move things along, rather than a straw poll, I think we've had this discussion pretty much here, but we can take a motion to amend H536 with version 4.1. If anybody would like to move that. So moved. All right, representative O'Brien, thank you. And is there any further discussion? Speak now, forever. I think I've said my piece. All right.

[Cina "Katie" McFadden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I tried. I tried to save the babies.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The clerk may call the roll.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yes. John Bartholomew. Yes. Michelle Bos-Lane.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Yes.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Or Greg Burtt.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Jack

[Rep. Kate Logan]: Logan. Yes. Yes. Greg.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Yes.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Jed Lipsky? Here. Richard Nelson? Yes. John O'Brien? Yes. And chair David Durfee? Yes. 701. And the reporter is? Men.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Oh, yes. Right. Representative Nelson. And Patricia, representative Lipsky has

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: That's a big Stop.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Stop. It might be worth just sending him again the link to the meeting in case he's able to and wants to. Okay, great, thank you. Now, I think we're gonna have Ellen come back and talk about the municipal ag committee bill. So Ellen, if you could for us, Patricia, I know she's out there somewhere, and we can just be at ease for a minute until she comes back.