Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Will the senate please come to order? We'll take a moment of silence in lieu of a devotional. Thank you. Are there any announcements? Seeing none, have house bills for reference. We have h eight seventeen, an act relating to mental health literacy and peer to peer supports in school, Introduced by representative. It passed the house on 03/24/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H eight seventeen, an act relating to mental health literacy and peer to peer support in schools.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, it is referred to the committee on health and welfare. We have h eight excuse me. We have h nine twenty eight, an act relating to technical corrections to fish and wildlife statutes introduced by the committee on environment. It passed the house on 03/24/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H nine twenty eight, an act relating to technical corrections to fish and wildlife statutes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, it's referred to the committee on natural resources. We have h nine thirty two, an act relating to regulation of forestry under act two fifty introduced by the committee on agriculture, food resiliency, and forestry. It passed the house on March 24 to the first reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H nine thirty two, an act relating to the regulation of forestry under act two fifty.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: We now have bills for third reading.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Oh, that

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: one I forgot to refer to. That one's referred to the committee on natural resources and energy. Orders of the day. Now we have bills for third reading. We have s three twenty three for third reading. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Yes, mister president. Thank you. I do have an amendment that is being passed out. This amendment speaks to my belief that rural farming is different than urban farming, while both valuable and important. They may need to be regulated slightly differently. So what this proposes to do is grant limited authority to tier one a and tier one b municipalities to set some regulations around what can be done in that municipality. Things like what types of animals, I think I made the mention yesterday that while an ostrich farm in Rygate may make sense, I don't think it makes sense in Downtown Burlington, and so really just looking at not stopping urban farming, but allowing municipalities to set some limited regulation for how what that looks like in their municipality and really just within our most densely populated town centers. So that is what the amendment does and my reasoning behind the amendment. Again, I'm deeply supportive of both types of farming. I just have experienced that they look a little different, and so that I I hope the body will support the amendment. I will I did send the amendment to the chair of senate ad, but I did not have time to take it in because I got the language about thirty minutes before the floor. So for that, I apologize and and would welcome taking some time or or answering, questions.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, mister president. I do want to clear up one, of the questions that the senator from Chittenden had asked yesterday about the situation in Essex with the ducks in the weed. That was the impetus for the the ruling that actually struck down all of what we thought was sacred with farming. And so it's been kind of addressed. One of the answers probably wasn't, as accurate as what it needs to be. That farm in Essex to this day right now would not be, in the way that it was before, this, bill that we have in front of us to pass. That farm would need to have at least one acre of land and comply with the animals that were on our list. The ducks of that were on that half acre of land would not comply. So I think if we could have a short recess so that we could look at this bill, we would appreciate that.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: We'll take a brief recess. The senate please come

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: to order.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, mister president. Mister president, our committee's met and, this amendment actually goes, undues undoes all the work of our signature piece of legislation in f three twenty three. This is what the Supreme Court had dictated what was gonna happen. And and we were very when the Supreme Court came out with a ruling that they had, we actually looked at their ruling and the Supreme Court said

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: if you

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: believe that farming is exempt in the way that you believe it, you've got to put your language in there. We worked really hard to get that language in. Now we had a lot of the stakeholder groups would want even more than what we were able to get in this bill. This actually brings in real problems for all the groups, all the advocates that we work really really hard for and made deals with the NOFAs of the world are not gonna be supportive of this bill. Rural Vermont is not gonna be supportive of this bill. This just takes the bill that we have spent half a year on and brings it right back to the Supreme Court decision and and really puts regulation on par. I wanna just be clear about what we've done. Any any any person that has that wants to grow food in any areas cannot be infringed upon. They have the right to grow food. What we have done as far as in this situation in Essex is that we've made them have it have to have one at least contiguous acre before they can they can to do anything as far as to how animals. We have the animals numbers in there and all of that. The committee was a strong five zero zero to vote against this amendment. And, you know, we have to trust the committee process. That's what we have to do. We work really hard to get great compromises with everyone. And there was just a lot of groups in there. I every farming group was in there and we've all come to a consensus of where we wanted to be. The LTC was which is I know behind this amendment as well. They were in the room nodding their heads in the right direction at the same time. So I would really can protect the committee process of all the hard work that we've done. As the senate body to respectfully not support this amendment.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Thank you, Mr. President.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator Perchlik.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, Mr. President. This I think gives us a good opportunity just to think for a second about amendments and the process that they go through. Understandably this one came out a little late to go through the committees but it does handicap us in our understanding of what's going on, what's being impacted beyond the language of the amendment. So we are at the halfway point in our process.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: This is a miscellaneous bill. There are other opportunities to revisit this. So my suggestion, and this goes for the amendments that we'll see the three twenty five as well. My suggestion would be that in general, senators follow committee recommendations for, what makes sense given the structure of the law as it stands and what's being proposed in the underlying bill. That being said, I would, I think it would make sense if this were to be withdrawn and then reoffered at a later date in line with enough timing for the committees involved to be able to do serious work. We had advanced notice of the amendments on 03/25 and we have in the space of twenty four hours been able to do significant work in committee to accommodate the people putting forward those amendments. I think the same can happen here, but it can happen with a little amount of time we've been given. So I would be voting this amendment down because there are questions that can't be answered right now. But again, I think it would be perhaps an opportunity for the amendment to be withdrawn and offered at a more fruitful time. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator Washington Central.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. I feel very strongly that we need to allow our municipalities to do some basic regulation, and I respect that there may need to be a little bit more work done to figure out how we fine tune that in. So I will be withdrawing the amendment at this time. However, I do intend to continue working to bring our town centers, our urban centers, the ability to have basic regulation or to have different regulation at the state level because I so strongly that urban farming is fundamentally different than farming in rural lands. So with that said, I I will today withdraw the amendment, but I do intend to. Thank you.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: I thank, mister president. I thank the, senator from Chittenden, and, and I look forward to working with her, moving ahead. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The amendment is considered withdrawn without objection.

[Senator Christopher Bray (Addison)]: Okay.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Do we have any further amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S three twenty three, an act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Hey, mister president. I, do have one more handout for you, with a little bit of data. So, we'd just love to to share this with the bonds.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator, you realize we're still on the miscellaneous ag bill?

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden)]: I'm gonna back that right up.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: There's a handout coming.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I thought we just heard it was a little late in the process for for new amendments. Anyways, are we ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and we passed s three twenty three. We now have s three twenty five for third reading. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Senator from Orange.

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: Yes, mister president. For those of you Oh, it's in the calendar. I'm sorry. Seven. 12 So let me just explain, what this amendment does and and why I have put it forward. Under the way the bill currently reads is until 01/01/2030, housing in the community centers would be exempt from Act two fifty if in fact the community has permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws and also has water and sewer services. If you look at our communities and I just checked actually this morning on the website, there are 125 of our communities are what are called one acre towns which means they do not have permanent zoning or subdivision bylaws. A 137 of them do. So that means we are excluding about half of our communities from the provisions of this bill. And if we're serious about moving housing forward, then we really need to be looking at and we believe that our community centers are where this housing should go is we should include these 125 communities in that exemption. So what my amendment proposes is basically to scratch the, reference to permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws. The amendment also allows for a slight increase in the area through the extension of water and sewer service. But that's basically what the amendment does. It allows us to include almost half of our communities in this endeavor to actually address our housing needs.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, Mr. President. So the committee did hear from senator from the the Senator from Orange about this amendment and anticipating that there may be a substitute amendment, which we hope may get at the the issue that the senator has identified. However, wondering if we can take a brief recess.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: We will take a brief recess. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. There was reference to a substitute amendment that's gonna take a few minutes to draft, and I don't wanna hold up action. So with that I would move that we pass over s three twenty five until later in the session and move directly to s three twenty eight. The

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: senator from Chittenden has moved that we pass over S three twenty five. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: I just have a clarifying question by later in the session do we mean ideally today? Yes. Absolutely

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Today but I was not given an exact timeframe and so I can't give an exact answer to the Senator's question.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Sorry so could be To

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: clarify it will be under every circumstance today.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: I do not wanna know when it's gonna be. Thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: I thank you,

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: sir. Let's go.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Motion on the floor is senator from Chittenden has moved that we pass over s three twenty five for the meantime, and it will come back hopefully sometime today. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the motion has carried. We now have third reading of s three twenty eight. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. So the senate natural resources and energy committee, looked at some of the language that was in this bill pertaining to defining the areas served by municipal water and sewer. We have, we had an amendment recommendation that mainly addressed the length that was defined by the senate economic developments proposal. Because if you have a length defined away from a water and sewer line, that length could just as well go 300 feet up a cliff. It could go 300 feet into the next town. It could go, you know, it it could, not work just based on the topography of of the place. So, we had worked out, some language that would eliminate that, but as I understand there is more coming on this from senate economic development. But just to explain a little bit further some of the amendments in here, we wanted to ensure that when we say it's an area served by municipal sewer and water infrastructure, that included fire districts. Often when we refer to municipalities, does not in some contexts it includes fire districts because they are technically municipalities especially in this context it often does not and apparently had been interpreted as not including fire districts. But they do sometimes offer both water and sewer and so we wanted to ensure that they were included in this and so that is added to the language here to ensure that fire districts are included. Then we also were proposing a farm worker housing report. We did hear from Vermont Housing and Conservation Board that they were open to updating their farm worker housing report. We've been hearing a lot about, especially, you know, in in the context of of housing, the need for more, farm worker and farmer housing, and so, that is where this report came from. They they were willing to update the reports, as the last time it was updated is, 2021. That is it for me. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are there any amendments

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: that's that is

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: excuse me. Was senator from hang on. That did you offer an an amendment, senator?

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden)]: Yes. Yes. Yes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: And that amendment is in the calendar? Yes. Thank you. Question is, would the senator from Windsor like to speak?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: What a great invitation. Thank you, mister president. I would. Senate of Economic Development heard this thoughtful amendment. We were we support this amendment. However, I'm going to yield to the senator senator Ram Hinsdale who reported this section in the bill, but we were supported this amendment and actually did additional work on it. Hence, you got a preamble to what is now the amendment. And I yield to senator Ram Hinsdale.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, Mr. President. I believe the substitute amendment is being handed out now. And I'll just say by way of process, we had a valuable exchange with the chair of your Natural Resources and Energy Committee. I don't know that the full committee has had the opportunity to read the language that's being presented on the floor. They may need a moment to discuss that or inquire of, I suppose myself as the presenter of this substitute amendment. But it was a further effort to try to be on the same page about our intent and share, and we share that intent with your natural resources and energy committee, but you wanted to be even more careful about what is struck out and what is left in, mister And so with that, what you have on your desk might look a bit similar to what you see in the calendar, we have unstruck Romanette I learning all kinds of new vocabulary today, because Mr. President, ultimately I think we share the same goal and intent that a municipality or their plans and bylaws that would allow for a water or sewer connection for a plot that was going to that was going to house a single family home, not be able to discriminate against multifamily housing with that same water or sewer connection. So in that regard, we did not want to cut out all of Romanette I, but simply the part about state regulations or permits. And we did strike the state regulations or permit section because we are hoping that the more conversations we have between the two committees of jurisdiction, the closer we can get to harmonizing the Home Act and Act 181. So we are not telling our municipalities, you know, you can or can't do something here near your water and sewer, but the state is still telling you something different. So the goal here is to underscore our intent that you are constrained by capacity and you are constrained by service and capacity agreements. But you are not otherwise constrained in, and should not otherwise make a discriminatory decision if the if it is more than a single family home, that is that is seeking the connection. We appreciate the addition of fire districts. Wonderful. And Mr. President, the last section, I think hopefully we'll start to be able to hear more about and talk more about, with another committee of jurisdiction on housing, which is when we talk about farm worker housing or on farm housing, you know, I I some of us have served on joint, committees on the the conditions and the environment for, for farm workers between economic development and, your agriculture committee. But Mr. President, and I'm happy to defend this. I think it is incumbent upon us to start moving away from language that separates out farmers and farm workers when we're talking about housing conditions, because many people are somewhere in between considering themselves a landowning farmer and a farm worker For those who do not own the land that they farm, they probably could also benefit from some attention to their housing needs and situations. And so the desire here is to replace farm worker more often with the words on farm housing, to recognize that there is not the same policy distinction between a farmer and farm worker often when we're talking about needing investment in safe, habitable, expanded housing. So that is the second amendment you see is using different language instead of farm worker housing, but on farm housing. With that, you'll see the amendment was sponsored by all of the members of our committee, and we hope that the body and your natural resources committee received this favorably.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. The Senate Natural Resource and Energy Committee did not have an opportunity to chat about this, substitute in it, so hoping that we can have a brief recess.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: We'll take a brief recess. Will senate please come to order? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. The Natural Resources, Energy Committee did, take a look at this, and, we're fine with it. Though it strikes the state regulations or or permits part that is pertaining to the map or the area that a municipality could identify as being part of their the area served by municipal water and sewer but these projects would still need to get state permits as as regular. So, we're fine with it on a a vote of or a straw poll of five zero. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. I just wanna speak specifically to the farm worker housing report. Senator Heffernan and I represent a constituent, his name is Ernie Caswell, and he is a huge advocate for improvements in farm worker housing across the state. Many of you have heard from him, and he works, and I believe is a co owner of Champlain Orchards in Shoreham and is has won a ton of awards on, doing work on farm worker housing. He asked at a legislative breakfast recently, asked us to try to find a way to update this report that was done in 2021 on, farm worker housing and what has happened since then. There's been some money thanks in large part to some ARPA funding and the work of our our housing committee to to get money for farmworker housing, but this continues to be an issue for orchards and farms across our state and and so just wanting to get this report, updated and VHCb was happy to do it and just wanted to stand up and give kudos to him because he is relentless and, I think this will help, move the ball forward still. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall s three twenty eight be amended as offered by the senator from Chittenden Alright. I might get this right.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: I yeah.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I I think I can get it. Shall the bill be amended as offered by senator from Washington as substituted? That's the next one. Alright. Then I don't have it.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: I don't know.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Shall the amendment offered by the senator from Washington be substituted as offered by the senator from Chittenden Southeast. I think that's close enough. Are you ready for the question? Because I'm not gonna ask it again. If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it. Motion's carried. And now the question is, shall s three twenty eight be amended as substituted? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Caledonia)]: Aye. Can

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: we go? No.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: We we have started.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: I would like to make a floor amendment on this bill. Now the proper time, you're to have to this is a vote on the amend this is a amendment on the this is a vote on the amendment

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: after we substitute it. Yeah.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: May I ask a clarifying question of the senator from Washington?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: You may. Senator from Washington's interrogated. The

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: middle senator from Washington. Not older, not younger, the middle.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: The

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: if he so desires.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: Thank you. Mister president, is this a this this a an addition to the substitute amendment we just voted on, or is this your amendment which we considered this morning?

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: We we voted on the substituting amendment, but we haven't voted on the amendment. So what I'm gonna wait for my amendment till we vote on this amendment.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: Perfect. Thanks. We

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: need a few more amendments in the mix. Okay. The question is, shall the bill pass as no?

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: It says, are you ready for the question?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Okay.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Question is, shall we approve the amendment as substituted? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and the motion carries. Senator from Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: K, mister president. I have, an amendment to this bill. I heard the protem's, I don't know what the right word is. Comments about amendments on the floor, but I think this is the exception that proves the rule and that it was very simple amendment that it does just delete one sentence from the bill. And I did have time to take it to the committee so the committee had a chance to review it Had I known it was gonna be such a conflict. The day might not have done it. So it looks like the amendment you won't notice by looking at the amendment what it does because it strikes the section and replaces the section with everything except the sentence that is being removed. So if you happen to have calendar today doesn't have the bill in it in his third meeting, but the calendar from yesterday on page ten forty eight, section four, this section, you could see that in the amendment, there's three parts of this report. This is section four is just asking for a report from budget council. In the if you if you have your calendar, they had four different things. The amendment just reduced it to three. The fourth that is being struck is one of the issues to be studied was allowed the installation of electric vehicle supply equipment on land reserved for the exclusive use of a unit owner. There was complication. I really appreciated that the committee took this up and included in the study. But it the the study would need to be done if we dealt with all parking spaces that a unit owner might have access to. That's what they mean by on land reserved for. That means a parking spot. I hope to address this issue with the transportation bill in a much simpler way that you're not dealing with all the parking spots just on the limited common area area. And I didn't want there to be confusion between the study language and what we'll be trying to do with the transportation bill. So I'm asking to strike four, which is the part of the study that will be about electric vehicles play equipment. This will also reduce the work of Legion Council. There's evidence. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: Thank you. The committee appreciated the senator's amendment and the reduced workload for our incredibly able legislative council. We look forward to seeing what the transportation bill does. As you can hear, it is a complex issue and an interesting one. So we wish the Transportation Committee luck in sorting through the challenges that we faced and didn't have time to address. So, we supported this five zero. Thank you very much. And we would encourage the body to support it as well.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The body's over in the other chamber. This is the senate. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. To the senator from Washington's comment, I don't believe this is an exception to what I said before because it did go through the committee, so we do benefit from the committee's informed advice. So it proves the rule, but it is not an exception. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: You ready for the question? Question is, shall s three twenty eight be amended as offered by the senator from Washington? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it and we have amended s three twenty eight as offered by the senator from Washington. Are we on to shall it pass now? Are there any further amendments? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S three twenty eight, an act related to housing in common interest communities.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Now you've heard the third reading of the bill. The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Aye. Ayes have it. We passed s three twenty eight. Senator from Chittenden, where would you like to go?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: At this point, we are still waiting for the substant substitute amendment related to three twenty five. So if we could move back to

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Mister Christopher.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Yep. Senator We could move

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: back to two seventy eight. Top of the calendar.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator, I've been informed that we may have the amendment. If we do, would you like to move straight to that?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: I would rather move to s two seventy eight to be sure.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Okay. We will move to s two seventy eight. We have on the calendar for action s two seventy eight introduced on 01/24/2026. It was referred to the committee on economic development, which reports it's considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as set forth in today's calendar starting on page eleven fifty nine, and that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the revenues of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on finance, which reports that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on economic development. Affecting the appropriations of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations, which reports that is considered the bill and recommends that the amendment proposed by the committee on economic development be amended as set forth in the calendar on page eleven seventy four and that when amended, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: That's two seventy eight, an act relating to cannabis.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I recognize the senator from Chittenden, senator Ram Hinsdale for the report on the from the committee on economic development.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you Mr. President. I do wish I was having a more chill day as I report this bill, but that is all right. S two seventy eight is the first economic development bill this body has advanced to support and strengthen Vermont's legal regulated cannabis market. To remind colleagues of the timeline, we legalized cannabis in 2020 with Act 164, seated the cannabis control board in April 2021 and saw the first legal sales in October 2022. In just a few years, Vermont's cannabis businesses have stepped up as good neighbors and as industry leaders from our farms to our downtowns. This bill represents the next phase of that work, moving from legalization to coherence in the market at a moment when federal shifts in the scheduling cannabis may soon reshape the landscape. S-two 78 focuses on consistency, small business support, local control, and public health and safety. First, it makes targeted adjustments to THC packaging and transaction limits, raising the per package limit from one hundred to two hundred milligrams and aligning purchase and possession limits from one ounce to two. These changes bring Vermont closer to other states while maintaining clear guardrails. Importantly, this does not change potency caps for flower concentrate or liquid, which remain under active discussion in the shared committees of jurisdiction. Second, it creates two tightly controlled pilot programs, An event permit pilot up to 20 events per year with local approval, strict safety standards, and no colocation with alcohol sales. A delivery permit pilot up to 15 permits manufacturers with limited hours, trained staff and no resale. Both are time limited and subject to legislative and cannabis control board regulation and review. Third, the bill strengthens municipal clarity, allowing towns to opt in by voter petition and to regulate time, place and manner of cannabis sales, but not to fully prohibit voter approved cannabis businesses. Fourth, it modernizes the business framework, updating licensing, allowing longer product registrations for low risk items, enabling grower cooperatives and expanding access to the cannabis business development fund. Fifth, it makes necessary tax and administrative updates and requires the cannabis control board to report back to the legislature. Mr. President, this bill was informed by a broad group of stakeholders, legislative council, the joint fiscal office, the Cannabis Control Board, the Department of Health, the Agency of Commerce, the Land Access and Opportunity Board, the banking sector, small farms, and cannabis businesses themselves, along with public health experts and educators. I want to take a moment to thank legislative counsel, particularly Tucker Anderson. This is highly technical work. It requires navigating a substance at the intersection of personal freedom, public health, the illicit market and economic opportunity. That balance is not easy and that care is shown in this bill. Mr. President, some appropriations tied to this work will be considered separately by appropriations as a standard, but these appropriations point to something bigger. Our responsibility to destigmatize a market we have already legalized and to repair harm to the victims of its over criminalization. There is a real need to support organizations through the Cannabis Business Development Fund as evidenced by the $1,000,000 appropriation. Organizations like legal clinics that cannot use federal funding to support cannabis businesses, but could be critical to their success and growth. And through the Land Access and Opportunity Board, we hope to begin to meet and they have in many ways arguably already exceeded our goal of addressing harms from the war on drugs without forcing participation in the cannabis industry, but ensuring real access to economic opportunity. A recent Pew study reminds us that cannabis remains one of the most moralized and stigmatized issues in the world, seen as more immoral than pornography, gambling, and alcohol. That stigma shapes lives. And I've come to understand that in a way I didn't expect or even appreciate until I was crafting this bill. My father lived much of his life in the shadow of the law. Growing up, I thought that was just part of being an immigrant entrepreneur running an Irish pub, working hard, taking risks, trying to do novel things to achieve the American dream. Only after he passed did I learn more of the truth from a longtime friend who had acted as his attorney. As a teenager coming back from India for his second year at UCLA, he had learned his classmates were curious about marijuana. At the time, cannabis often grew freely along the roadside in India. So he brought some back with him, a suitcase full, and he was understandably detained at the airport. He never told us that story. Instead, he carried it quietly for the rest of his life. What may have felt like a small naive decision became something much heavier, a record, a shadow, a constant sense that legitimacy was just out of reach. He spent his life trying to build that legitimacy back. He never used alcohol or cannabis in my lifetime. He wasn't chasing substances, he was chasing belonging. He opened businesses, created spaces, brought people together. That's who he was. But he lived at the intersection of morality, marginalization, and the economy, and that intersection could be unforgiving. He died still working, still serving others carrying a tray in his hand, still trying to find his place in the American dream. S-two 78 is about making sure fewer people have to carry that kind of quiet burden, that fewer people get pushed into the shadows for something we now regulate tax and permit. It's about aligning our laws with our values and making sure dignity is part of the system we built. Mister President, your committee on economic development housing and general affairs passed s two seventy eight by a vote of five zero and respectfully asks for the support of the senate. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I now recognize the senator from Chittenden Southeast, senator Chittenden, for the report of the committee on finance.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. Your senate finance committee reviewed this bill, and we saw a few effects on state revenues. One being the event permits, which we estimated to generate a maximum of about $10,000, 5,000 of which municipalities and 5,000 of which to the cannabis regulation fund. We also anticipate that the delivery permits would add an additional $1,500 for a total of $6,500 to state revenues. We also wanted to recognize that changing the definition of household income for the purposes of calculating the property tax credit to include cannabis deductions would, all else equal, increase property tax credits paid to Vermont homeowners, which would reduce net homestead property tax collected by the education fund starting in fiscal year twenty twenty seven. These changes would have a minimal impact on the Education and General Fund. And to that extent, your senate committee of, finance voted six zero one to move this bill forward. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I now recognize the senator from Washington District, senator Perchlik, for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Your committee on appropriations reviewed this for appropriations, and we have an amendment for that one appropriation, one section appropriation. This amendment is on page eleven seventy four of today's calendar and conveniently enough right across the page on page eleven seventy three is section 28 which is our second instance of amendment striking that section which has the two appropriations that you'll see in section 28. That's pretty straightforward. The first instance of amendment is a technical correction that Legis Council brought to us knowing we were making this amendment. If we could make those corrections, the the sections referred to are the wrong sections. It refers to seven and eight, but because of some changes, it's really sections five and six. So that's just the first is a technical correction. In the second instance is our removal of the appropriations or some are referring it to it, a gutting of the bill. The committee voted on this amendment six zero one.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The question is, shall the recommendation of the amendment of the committee on economic development be amended as proposed by the committee on appropriations? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've amended the recommendation of amendment as proposed by committee on appropriations. Question now is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on economic development as amended. Senator from there's an amendment. Two seventy eight.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Okay.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. I don't have any questions to ask. Our guard committee, center of health and welfare, did provide the bill with some concern about, of course, access for those who are not supposed to or underage for having, cannabis. And we so we took testimony in particular on sections five and six related to events and distribution, and were reassured by the chair of the cannabis control board that, they're looking at this as well and also concerned, and they're putting in place rules and procedures, to ensure that access is held to the right level and the right people. Thank you, mister president. So overall, I think the the committee, does support the the bill as it has been amended. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Windsor for a report on her amendment.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: Thank you, mister president. Actually, this is the entire committee's amendment, and it was meant to be originally meant to be part of the bill. We ran out of time as we all know we had those deadlines to meet crossover. So we're actually offering it as an amendment so that it goes to the house in its originally intended fashion. This I'm calling this our our scouts amendment, our be prepared amendment. Senate economic element and general affairs housing and general affairs is channeling our inner scouts in this amendment. This addition to our bill is designed to prepare Vermont in case the federal government reschedules or changes enforcement policies about cannabis. You have all read about the president's executive orders and potential action. We really want to be well prepared. So in it addresses policy changes concerning the interstate transfer of cannabis. Our objectives our objective in this is to protect Vermont's craft cannabis market in case it changes to federal law, which we have seen hints of from the president. This amendment authorizes the governor to enter into a regional or inter state compact designed to enable interstate commerce, which would honor each state's laws and regulations. This amendment is based on New Jersey, but there are four states that have actually been ahead of us on preparing for this moment, New Jersey, California, Washington, and Oregon. But this amendment is based on New Jersey's law, which has the same authorization currently embedded in its statutes. So this bill, four points, the compact agreements may be formed by any state that has regulatory standards that meet or exceed Vermont's regulatory standards. Second, agreements allow licenses in each state to acquire licenses in other partner states. That's if you're part of this compact. Third, agreements are contingent on four potential changes in federal enforcement. And I will read them. One, when federal law is amended to allow for interstate transfer of cannabis. Two, when federal law is enacted that prohibits the expenditure of federal funds on enforcement activities concerning the interstate transfer of cannabis. Three, when the US DOJ Department of Justice issues an opinion or memorandum allowing or tolerating the interstate transfer of cannabis. And last, when the Vermont Attorney General issues a written opinion that the implementation of an agreement will not result in significant legal risk to Vermont, to the state, to our state. And finally, the cannabis control board has rulemaking authority to govern admission of licenses under this compact. As the senate can see, all of our committee members have sponsored this amendment, which better prepares Vermont for changes to the federal, law, and we ask for the senate support. Thank you very much.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Question is, shall the recommendation of amendment of the committee on economic development be amended as amended, be further amended as recommended by senator Clarkson and others? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have amended the recommendation of amendment of the Committee on Economic Development. The question now is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on economic development as amended? Are you okay. Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, mister president. Can I interrogate the reporter of the of S 2278, please?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The senator the reporter is interrogated.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, mister president. I'm just curious about what the problem was to solve the of taking allowing for one ounce to two ounces. What was what was the what was the reasoning for raising that that allowance of the extra ounce?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, Mr. President. Somewhere in here I have all my different limits for the states around us.

[Senator Christopher Bray (Addison)]: Our

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: overall effort with the bill was to harmonize more of our purchasing policies with the states around us. Many at this point, however we feel about it, an individual could go into multiple cannabis retailers and purchase over an ounce of cannabis, that it would be harder for them to follow all of our other laws if they purchased more than that ounce. But at the same time, we simply have no way of overseeing that. States around us have a higher purchase limit. And we heard reports from our cannabis retailers that they are advertising in our state, you know, just come across the lake. And you can, you know, they're not advertising that you can purchase more. But they are taking business away from from our cannabis retailers because many folks would like to be able to purchase a higher amount in in one shopping opportunity. We heard a little bit about the stigma. And, you know, most folks aren't looking to go into multiple stores. At the same time, President, this is a consumer choice matter. This is like buying a six pack of beer or you know, a 12 pack or a 30 rack. People don't on average tend to consume more simply because they're buying more. They just don't have to make as many trips to a retailer.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, Mr. Baruth. My second question is, far as raising the level of the THC in the packaging, did we raise the levels of what the product in itself that that you could consume or is it just raising that you could have more THC in the packaging?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you for that clarifying question, Mr. President, because there are a lot of different caps and limits and thresholds, and we want to make sure that we are staying aligned on our public health conversations. In so we have not changed any potency caps which would be per a consumable item. So we have not changed the potency of the actual flour that that can be produced. So growers do have to in some cases dilute the flour so that it doesn't reach above a certain THC potency. We have not also touched the potency of solids or concentrates. What this does do is allow again a consumer choice around packaging. Many retail products are offered in multiple types of packaging. So you might still have, you still have a regulated amount per let's say solid gummy that's in a package, but you might have twice as many of those gummies in one package to use an example.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, Mr. President. My final question is looking on the bill in itself and I didn't see it in the on the calendar. The bill also proposes to lower the cannabis excise tax from 14% to 10%. Did that survive the

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: did

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: that survive into the final bill?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: That did not survive, mister president. I think it's a conversation we should have on an ongoing basis with our committees of jurisdiction, including finance. It's something we did over time in the spirits industry, recognizing that we started with a very high tax, not knowing how much commercial activity we would have and how much we would need the resources to regulate. But over time, we hope to share that jurisdiction with finance as an economic discussion of our prices potentially being higher than in other states. Mr. President, if I didn't emphasize it fully, many states, in addition to the 12 that have already legalized the recreational sale of marijuana are now looking at, legalizing the sale of recreational marijuana. The conversation is happening, for example, in the New Hampshire Assembly, where the conversation is happening around those products being available in the existing liquor retail outlets. I think many of us are more familiar with, our experience around spirits and other types of alcohol and how we try to make sure our regulations support our craft, producers, in an environment where they are now potentially in the future competing with, other states markets?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: I thank the reporter. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Caledonia, understand you have an amendment to offer.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Caledonia)]: I do Mr. President. While they're handing out, I'm on, do you want to follow on the calendar? I'm looking at page eleven sixty three, section six sub a. In the delivery permitting section of this bill, it allows for a delivery permit to be obtained by a tier one or tier two cultivator or manufacturer. And what this bill does is it says that that tier one or tier two cultivator or manufacturer to be eligible for the delivery permit cannot also have a retail license. And the reason for that is is that many of our tier one and tier two cultivators and manufacturers do also have a retail license. They have access to the retail marketplace and they sell their products at that retail marketplace and they actually have the capability to deliver to people that are medicinal users of cannabis. What this amendment would do is it would say those delivery permit fees are only for the tier one and tier two that do not have a retail license, which means that effectively right now under current law, Mr. President, they do not have access to the retail market. They only have access to the wholesale market and so this would ensure that those 15 annual permits as is laid out in the bill would only be available to those tier one and tier twos that do not have a retail license. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Alright. Senator from Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. The committee your committee on economic development heard from the senator from Caledonia on this amendment. We had some back and forth because we still recognize that it will take some time for a tier one or two cultivator or manufacturer to have the safety mechanisms and point of sale operation in place to receive what will be a stringent delivery license, but that it was our intent to focus this, delivery license pilot opportunity on both, the tier one and two cultivators and manufacturers who don't have an outlet for their own product. Retailers are not necessarily beholden to just sell, local cannabis products. And we also recognize that this was largely so that we could help provide legal access to the market in areas that do not currently have access to a retailer in their proximity. So on a on a straw poll of five to zero, we support this amendment.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: So the question is, shall the bill as offered by the committee on economic development, as amended, be further amended as offered by the senator from Caledonia? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and the motion carries. The question now is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on economic development as amended? Are you ready for

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: the

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Caledonia)]: Nay.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have amended the bill as recommended by the committee on economic development as amended. The question now is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you've ordered third reading of s two seventy eight. We will now go back to third readings. I I I think we have the amendment. Senator from Chittenden?

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: There's a lot of those.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Is it your hope that we would go back to third reading?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: It is. Three twenty five.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Not always. We now have third reading of s three twenty five. Are there amendments prior to third reading? There's a pending question, which is? Okay. Yes. Yes. The so the pending question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the senator from Orange? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. As I understand that there is, gonna be a substitute amendment, and would love to

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: I thought we said we had it.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: We have it.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Chittenden, would you like to ask a question? No. She's doing. She's doing. Oh, you're doing the amendment?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: I mister president, I would like to present a substitute amendment to the

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Excellent. Senator from Chittenden. It is being passed out as we speak.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, president. Don't I don't have my glasses on, so I just wasn't sure if you where you were in the process. So, members are receiving, a substitute amendment to, the amendment from the senator from from Orange. And it it has a, you know, a significant amount of language in it. First, before I forget to do anything, I would like to thank Ellen Chittenden from Legislative Council. She had a very busy morning working on amendments and substitute amendments and trying to match the intent of a lot of different stakeholders. And we greatly appreciate that. This amendment falls within the section of Act 181 that creates interim exemptions for certain numbers of units of housing in certain designated areas. Mr. President, the as you may have heard from the senator from Orange, there is an exemption for a housing exemption for village centers that have permanent zoning and bylaws. I would remind the chamber of something I said yesterday, I believe, which is that every municipality we hope should have some ability to access all of our tiers, tier one, tier two, tier three. And in that spirit, we ought to recognize that we have village centers where there are no permanent zoning or bylaws, but they are either trying to receive grants to advance permanent zoning and bylaws or they are communities that are wary of permanent zoning and bylaws and we have more work to do with them to make sure that they know there are benefits that might come along with getting that further designation. So in the interim, President, offered in the spirit of collaboration with the Senator from Orange, this particular sentence would allow for up to 50 units of housing that fall under our priority housing project category. Those are projects that are either deemed affordable by having 20% affordable housing, or they're deemed a mixed use development. What we commonly see and want to promote in our our village centers and our downtowns of having some commercial component and housing above or adjacent. So with that, Mr. President, this otherwise follows the exact language of a village center and the quarter mile around it that currently has access to up to 50 units of any type of housing. And this amendment allows for priority housing projects to be exempt from Act two fifty until 2030. And so, Mr. President, I was able to present this to members of your natural resources committee, but I will allow them to determine whether or not they find it favorable.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator for Washington.

[Senator Christopher Bray (Addison)]: Thank you,

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: mister president. We did get a chance chat about this in general, but we didn't, get a chance to chat about it once we saw the language. So I'd like to take a two minute recess just now that we have the language to confirm. Thank you

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: for We'll take

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: a two minute recess. Will senate please come to order? Senator for Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. So the National Resource and Energy Committee looked at this and on a straw poll, you're fine with it at five, zero. But I just want to say too that I'm very grateful that Senator for Orange came to us with this amendment early. We had a chance to understand the concerns. We had a chance to work through it And I I just wanna say that we're we're trying to approach this in a spirit of collaboration. We all know that we need more housing. We wanna do it in a smart and thoughtful way, and it seemed to us that, there there was some way to accomplish this and it does seem to us that this is a fine way to get at the problem that the senator is trying to solve and so appreciate his efforts and I just want to make sure that we're communicating that, we are, also in problem solving mode, towards the towards the good of more housing in Vermont. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Orange.

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: Mister President, I I thank the senator from Washington and the senator from Chittenden for working with me on finding what, I believe is a good solution. So I thank them, and I support the amendment to my events.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. This does look like an improvement. Overall, I will just identify on line six. I believe the word of, should be in front of 50 units, as a scribner's error. Could I recommend that proposal? We

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: will read that as a scribner's error. I can't believe the English professor didn't pick that one up. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Mister president, I currently don't see the Scribner's error, but I I'm happy to

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Perhaps your seatmate can help you out. Perhaps you should get your glasses.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. Kind

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Caledonia)]: of order.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Are

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: we ready for the question? Question is, shall the amendment as offered by the senator from Orange be substituted by the amendment offered by the senator from Chittenden Southeast? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden)]: Nay.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and the motion has carried. Now we are back to oh, now we are to shall the bill be amended as substituted? Are you ready for the question? We just approved the substitute amendment for the first amendment. So now if we accept the substitute amendment, we have to put it on the bill. That's what this vote is for. Senator from Bennington.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: Mister president, I I'm fine with this amendment. I was one of the five on the Natural Resources Committee that said it's okay. But I do want to point out for the just for the body for thinking about this in the future because it's relevant to this. One of the intents of the bill combined with municipal planning grants is to get more towns to pass municipal planning and zoning and then therefore earn the benefits that come with that. That was part of that's a major part of the construct and we're sort of stepping away from that for these three years by in some ways doing the opposite almost rewarding tasks that haven't done that. On the other hand, priority housing projects the reality is they're going to tend to get built in places that make sense and have the right construct for it. Again in that spirit that our chair referenced of wanting to accommodate and move the whole body as much as we can together. I'm willing to I'm going along with this amendment despite the fact that it's at least just for future reference and as we think about this going forward. Part of the intent here is to get towns to pass and to get on board with planning and zoning and then the right benefits that come with that. And so having having just made that case for the future, I'm on board for this.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Thank you, mister president. I just wanna explain why, I voted against the amendment, and I I do understand the spirit, and I want all communities to be able to, produce housing. I I just get concerned when we're potentially establishing a situation that that just doesn't make sense. These these buildings will need water and sewer. It says within a quarter mile of water and sewer, and that's not it's very different. And I just don't want communities to think that they can do something and spend time, in that effort and realize later on that it's it's not going to be the way that they think it is. But I do understand and most of these, hopefully all of these, if they are initiated, would be initiated by one of our agencies or entities that does a lot of this development, they would be able to explain the pros and cons

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: of going forward. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. I think this is an important time to simply remind the body that where there is a village center without permanent planning and zoning, they would fall under tier two. And in tier two, we have an Act two fifty rule that I previously mentioned called ten fifty five. So in a village center now that is under tier two, they could build up to nine units of any type of housing. But then the developer that built those nine units in that village center or area around it, or really anywhere in the state has to go five miles away, or wait five years to not trigger Act two fifty. We have a lot of small developers and smaller population centers where getting above those nine units, but under probably well under 50 units really allows them to meet our housing goals that we've asked every municipality to meet, as well as simply allow them to create clustered affordable projects, which I think meets a lot of our goals, at once. So just a reminder that for some of us, the ten-five-five rule also creates a lot of need for capacity and potentially poor planning without giving those same communities the option to build more. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Question is, shall the bill be amended as substituted? If you're ready for the question, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Nay. The ayes have it, and we have amended the bill as substituted. The question now is shall the bill pass? Yes. I know. Senator from Gotcha. Yes. Senator from Chittenden North has an amendment that is being handed out.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: Thank you, mister president. Senators will notice that I have an amendment in the calendar. I will not be substituting. I will not be talking about that. Need to keep my focus on the amendment that I have provided that's getting passed out here. So I'm offering this new amendment. Speaks to the same, underlying amendment that's in

[Senator Christopher Bray (Addison)]: the calendar,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: but

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: after having a good conversation in Senate Natural Resources, this morning

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: Thank you.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: This amendment here deals with tier one b areas. And currently, tier one b is allowing for, 50 units or less to be built on tracks of land 10 acres or less. And through over the past several days and and weeks, I've heard different areas about having tracts of land that are above this 10 acre threshold, but when you dig into the details on those tracts of land is what makes Vermont great. We don't have perfectly flat 10 acre parcels square to utilize the whole area. We have parcels that you can develop on a portion of them and you may have a low lying area. If you look out the window behind us here, it goes straight up a flip side. That would all be encompassed in the size of the parcel, that's not really developable, but goes against your your 10 acres. So what this amendment does is it's a little longer, but the main really, only change is gonna be on the second page. It's gonna be dealing with the interim exemptions where it is striking out the 10 acre rule in tier one b. So you can still only develop up to 50 units and the parcel size is struck for the 10 acres. So it can be any size parcel, And that is like that of tier one a. Tier one a, you can build up to 75 units. There's no maximum parcel size. So this bill is only pertaining to the interim exemptions until 2030, And this will allow for development to occur in places where we want it to occur. There's already maybe public water, public sewer, soils that can be used for for wastewater. There's examples that I have seen near my district that are surrounded by development. There's many homes. There's many commercial development around it, entertainment. And it's it's what I like about this bill with the one b is that previously, it was a it was a single family home on over 10 acres of property in this very dense, zoning area of the town. And now a developer is looking to develop this into a more housing that I'm we've all talked about if we need more housing in the state. But without this change, it would trigger them into an act two fifty permit. So in this interim period, this amendment will strike the 10 acres and allow the project to move forward, you know, assuming local town ordinances or a batten DRB approval. But I think this amendment was a fun one for me because I as you'll see in the calendar, it's a little different. And after a good conversation in committee where where the good work is done, we we came to this consensus.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Caledonia)]: I'm not

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: sure if the committee has seen the exact wording of this amendment, so I will let them speak. But I appreciate the work that was done this morning, and I ask for the senate support. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Senator Natural Resource and Energy Committee, did hear from, the the senator from Chittenden North about this amendment, and we were able to, work together, with the senator through, through that dialogue to come to a place where, we felt comfortable. This is, not the amendment that, we started with from the from the senator, and just really grateful for the collaboration, and again, trying to move towards again more housing for Vermont and trying to find the place where we could find some common ground. And I think we were able to do that. And so we are on a straw poll of, five zero zero supportive of this amendment. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall shall s three twenty five be further amended as offered by the senator from Chittenden North. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it and we have further amended s three twenty five. Are there any further amendments? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Christopher Bray (Addison)]: Thank you, Mr. President. As it is being handed out, we are asking or I am asking to extend some dates. But before I do this, I would like to read from actual remarks.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: You have to ask permission to read something.

[Senator Christopher Bray (Addison)]: Mister president, may I?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Without objection. Thank

[Senator Christopher Bray (Addison)]: you. I rise with the amendment and with a a Vermont story, why this amendment can help. A a family born and raised here scraped for twenty seven years to buy 250 acres of forest in Bridgewater. They built a 16 by 16 a frame with their own hands. They paid their taxes. They followed a forest plan. They opened their land to others. They never posted it. They protected it, not for profit, but for a legacy. They placed it in an irrevocable trust, so their children and their grandchildren working Vermonters might have a place to live, to build a modest cab, to work the lands, to to stay rooted here in Vermont. And now, act 181 threatens to make this impossible. Not because the family wants to overdevelop, not because they want to cash out, but because they may no longer be able to do the simplest most meaningful thing, pass along this opportunity. Meanwhile, just next door, a very different story unfolds. A well funded out of state buyer built a mountaintop estate, miles long road, thousands of square feet of acres cleared. Would ACT 180 have stopped them? No, because they're wealthy and can navigate the complexity. Wealth can absorb cost better than average for modern. So we must ask ourselves plainly, are we protecting Vermont's lands or pricing Vermonters out of it? Because as written Act 181 risks doing exactly that. It creates barriers that working families cannot overcome while leaving the door open for those who can afford the process. That is not conservation, that is exclusion. We all agree Vermont's natural resource and ecosystem must be protected. But the people who have done that quietly, faithfully for generations should not be the ones to be punished here. There's a better path, possible exemptive transfer across generations of Vermonters allowing reasonable number of housing based on acreage and above all slow this down. Bring landowners into conservation hold rule hearings to ensure transparency. I think we heard that loud and clear the other day. Because once serve Vermonters from their land, we do not easily restore that bond. This is not about policy here. This is about identity. It is about whether the next generation can afford to work to live on the land their families fought so hard to eat. Act 181 as written risk breaking that chain. So I'm asking to vote for this amenia. Vote for the working Vermonters who have already given so much to the state through generations. This amendment will give us more time to do the right thing. I ask the body to support this amendment.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. I am if I am not mistaken, this is an amendment that the senator brought to us two days ago. Is that I guess there's a question. Mr. President.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: Is he

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: I I would like to interrogate the presenter of the amendment.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The presenter is interrogated.

[Senator Christopher Bray (Addison)]: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes. It was at the very end. The beginning of that amendment was asking to repeal tier three and we had that yesterday and then this was just to push out the times.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you Mr. President. I just want to, comment or I I thank the senator. I just wanted to make it clear it was unclear to me that this amendment was coming, today based on, how everything, played out over the last couple of days. We did talk briefly about this in committee, but we did not take a straw poll, and I would love to call a two minute recess to chat with

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: the community.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: We will take a brief recess. Will the senate please come to order? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. We had a good conversation with the natural resources and energy committee and are recommending that we do not pass this amendment out of straw poll of three against two for the amendment. And the reason being is that we have we did deliberate work about timing of the delay at this point. We do want to include the voice of, more Vermonters. We want to be able to receive more feedback. We think that this accomplishes it, and the longer we push it out, the more uncertainty it might actually sow and think that there may be some opportunity to think more critically about the rollout of the tier three implementation, but that that's something that we could, talk further about it in at another time, and not try to try to adjust on the fly and to recommend not not moving forward with this amendment. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. I will be voting no on this amendment, and I wanted to describe a concern that I have that I think has been starting to percolate in this discussion that we should talk about. And that's the description of certain native Vermonters, longstanding property owners, families in rural communities, and an almost hierarchical explanation of the value of that. And then the comparison of that to environmental policy and land use regulation, that there's this concept that we are oppressing, that I even heard that word oppressing folks by asking them to be a part of a regulatory process that looks at specific criteria to make sure that our communities are having democratic conversations about land use. That to me is not oppression. That to me and I see you're smirking and you're rolling your eyes, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I did not roll my eyes. Thank you, and I don't think you are supposed to refer to the president. I did smile, and thank you very much. Please be in order.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: I think that the way that we have chosen to have this conversation has unfortunately created this black and white picture rather than the gray of what we are trying to do with our land use planning. Because the process that we laid out in act one eighty one, a multi year process, was to have those conversation conversations about the gray area. The area that we want as communities to preserve in tier three, those beautiful waterfalls, the places in Bridgewater where we have seen Bobcat, where we have unchaddicky way, if we're gonna reference Bridgewater, where we have connected connected communities of ecosystems that a home, that a development would disrupt for all future generations. So if we're going to discuss what it means to protect the vitality of Vermont for future generations, whether they be generations of my children who will be fourteenth generation Vermonters, or whether they be generations of children who it's their first time being Vermonters in their family. Every single one of those individuals deserves access, deserves protection and preservation of vital resources like our ecosystems, like our water quality. And all of that is why generations ago when senator Dick McCormick was still in the senate, We worked on act two fifty to create a process where land is being used in a way that isn't just to the benefit of one single property owner or one single business, but rather to identify the needs of a community. And I hope that when we continue to have this conversation, that we do not place a superiority on Vermonters who have been here like myself for generations of family, but rather on those future generations regardless of their status of familial line in our state. Because future generations may not have the same ecosystems that we have access to because of development. So we have to balance that in the same way that we had with previous generations on land use policy. So I hope that we can vote no on this amendment and support the hard work of Senate Natural Resources who diligently crafted a bill, s three twenty five, to extend where we needed to and hold steady where we had to. So I appreciate the senator from Washington County and her diligence to collaborate and compromise, and I respect why the committee chose not to do so on this amendment, and I will be joining them with a no vote.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: I had planned to remain quiet today. I thought I spoke quite a bit yesterday, but I just have to, add some comment, to the what I just heard. Unfortunately, and it's very, very unfortunate, that, there are folks that don't realize that there are, fundamental rights within the constitution of The United States. I mean, Vermont about, land ownership in this, in the state of Vermont. And that the land that is owned by people indeed is, their land. And it is their rights to do as to what they wanna do. And I think, that we're gonna be to a point before too long to where we can see some constitutional challenges, in this state as far as the overreach of the legislature of what they do with private landowners. The constitution is very clear in the state of Vermont about the protections of private landowners. And, and I think that's one clear thing that we need to really understand in this chamber is that it is not this chamber's land. It is the land of the people who have owned it for decades or two minutes. But it is their land, and it is their land to do with what they wanna do with it as long as they're not destroying it in such a way that would bother more than one person. So land ownership is in Vermont is in the constitution. Private land ownership is very well protected. And I think that if we keep on going, we will see some very strong challenges to the Supreme Court about how folks do believe that land that they do not owe belongs to them when it does belong to the person that have holds the deed. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Addison.

[Senator Christopher Bray (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president, and thank you for the comments that's been made on both sides. Keywords that were used, I heard, was us and our. I ask you this, who paid the taxes all these years? And who preserved it for years and without the state's help to allow this wildlife to desire now to continue to be now. Senator from Essex said it quite well there is a place for Vermont to have say in what happens to land if it's going to be developed. The private land ownership is one of the key foundations of this Vermont state. It is almost, that's why it's so hard to post your land in Vermont because they did not want nobility and leadership to tell you what to do with their land. It is such a pain to try to post your land as we're going to see and deal with here in the near future. This really is about the rights of landowners.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Good stewards

[Senator Christopher Bray (Addison)]: that are already being good stewards to their land. Is all this amendment is doing saying let's take a little more time to make sure we get it right. That's all this amendment is doing and we've heard over and over again we need more time. I'm on education committee they're telling me to pump the brakes all the time or moving way too fast. Well I'm saying the same thing here, let's put the brakes on for a little bit. Thank

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: you, Mr. President.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Caledonia.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Caledonia)]: I do think we've hit the crux of the matter here. Whether somebody's on their land for a matter of years or generational center generational ownership that goes back for centuries. It's not their neighbor's land. It's not their community's land. It's not the state's land, literally or figuratively.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, Mr. President. In the conversation about the amendment, which the senator from Addison has offered to the body, we've heard a lot of passing, but what I haven't heard yet from the senator, Mattos, and if I can request to interrogate the presenter of the amendment

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The senator is interrogated.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: I'd like to offer the senator an opportunity to explain the logic for the date extension before we roll over this amendment and dismiss it on party lines. If I could offer that opportunity to the senator from Addison to, again, explain why he's proposing gay extensions.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Christopher Bray (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: If it was

[Senator Christopher Bray (Addison)]: up to me I probably would have extended long. Picked these dates because they're more realistic. It's not asking for five more years and one is only asking for one more year extension for rule making and another for implementing. That's basically how it came up for the dates. There was no other than to give a little more time and to get more feedback from our our constituents because if there's one thing we need is to hear from more Vermonters to make the right decisions. Thank you,

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: mister president.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: I thank the senator and I thank you, mister president, for the opportunity.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Question is senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. I just wanna articulate that, some of the reasons that the senator, from Addison identified, you know, giving more time to, hear from more Vermonters is exactly why we delayed it, as we did and we were, intentional about the date that we picked. And so I just would like to say that there will even be more time to decide is more time needed should we come to that conclusion at a later point. So, just wanted to point that out. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the senator from Addison? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. Senator, I can't exactly tell what you're doing from Chittenden. Are you just coming to your seat?

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Sitting down.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Okay. Let's try that again then. Now that the senator beside you quickly sat down. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Caledonia)]: Nay. Division, vision.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Division has been called for. Will all in favor please rise. Please be seated. All opposed, please rise. You may be seated. Those in favor, 13. Those opposed, 17. The amendment has failed. Are there any further amendments before third reading? Please listen to the third reading.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: That's three twenty five, an act relating to studying the creation of model bylaws.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. I will be brief. I in these discussions about land use and act two fifty, I always feel after an hour or two that I'm living in an odd world where up is down and down is up. I view three twenty five, 181 and the bills that came before that over the last several years as loosening Act two fifty. And I think if you look overall, the cumulative effect from four or five years ago to now, there has been what I would consider as a historic loosening of the regulations of Act two fifty in honor of the crisis in housing. So I tend to forget that when we come on the floor and we hear that people's rights are being stripped, they're being forced from their land, there's lamentations in

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: the

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: hills. This is what we had been begged for, for years from our friends across the aisle. That is loosening where Act two fifty was needed, preferring housing in certain areas, and in the case of 03/25, extending those deadlines even further, allowing more housing over the next three or four years. So I I will go home today, mister president, feeling proud of the work we've done to loosen act two fifty in a wise way to allow more housing for the people who need it. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: And I do mean no disrespect to the pro tem for speaking after. I understand how the rules go, but I hear the pro tem's comments about loosening, act two fifty. The problem with this law and all the bills that have come forward is it's not doing that. It's doing it in areas that the majority wants it to happen, but it's not doing it where the rural population understands. In fact, we are looking to expand more regulation into the rural areas ever and and more of the state than it ever has been with with laws that were originally intended to restrict commercial growth. And now what we have done is we've expanded Act two fifty into the, people just building home or people just wanting to do with whatever they wanna do with their land, and that is where the rub is. That's where the rub is. If you wanna if you want to reduce that two fifty and build more housing, do it in the areas that everyone can understand. But but to add more regulations to all the rest of the state because you wanna build houses in certain areas,

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: is where the rub is. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Question is shall the bill pass? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. No. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and we've passed s three twenty five.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: 64. Yeah. Do it.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are we to proceed down through the calendar, senator?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Yes, mister president. So s 64 would be, what I believe will be our last bill of the bill.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: We have on the calendar for action s 64 introduced on 02/11/2025. It was referred to the committee on government operations, which reports it has considered the bill and recommends that it ought to pass. The bill was then committed to the Committee on Health and Welfare, which reports that the bill ought to pass. Affecting the finances of the state, the bill was referred to the Committee on Finance, which reports that the bill ought to pass. Affecting appropriations of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations, which reports the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S 64, an act relating to amendments to the scope of practice for optometrists.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Recognize the senator from Rutland for the report of the committee on government operations.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Quite often, folks both inside and outside this chamber speak about the passing of bills as the making of sausage. I think based on what we've done earlier today, you could make a case for adding a big sausage earlier today, and I don't mean that in any negative way. Perhaps I failed this humor. S 64 does fit that prescription in many ways. The bill's provisions have been contemplated for more than half a decade. The Office of Professional Regulation inside the Secretary of State's office concluded in a 2020 report that the office did not support the expansion of scope of practice for optometrists because they could not obtain enough information from optometry colleges. Following additional review, OPR changed its stance, and in a subsequent report in 2023, found that, quote, with appropriate training and oversight, optometrists could indeed safely perform advanced procedures. The updated OPR position supports creating an advanced procedure specifically requiring training and ongoing reporting of adverse outcomes to OPR. Today, OPR is 100% in agreement with this bill. In fact, they drafted the bill based on that 2023 Sunrise report. So s 64 was introduced last year in February. I believe it was the eleventh, if my research is correct, and then referred to the senate health and welfare committee. Three days later, the bill was committed to the senate government operations committee, and the committee took weeks of testimony and became convinced that given the requisite education and, more importantly, continuing education and training, the committee could support the bill. I would note, mister president, that the vote in senate government operations was five zero zero and that it was a tripartisan vote. We would ask for the senate to move the bill forward. The bill was then recommended to the senate health and welfare committee who took additional testimony this year, and my understanding is the senator from Orleans will be reporting the results of their work, with a section by section looking at the bill. Thank you, mister Perch.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Recognize the senator from Orleans, senator Morley, for the report of the committee on health and welfare.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Thank you, mister president. This is, a long bill. You folks have seen this around for a long time as the senator from Rutland said, and this is one of those bills where there's not a lot of middle ground. Either agreeing this way or you agree that way. And so there was a lot of discussion about that. So as you heard, the Office of Professional Regulation submitted their detailed summarized report 2023 after the 2020 report didn't support expansion. There was enough information on education and training. The 2023 OPI report was performed at this body's request. They also drafted the language as you heard in s 64. Eyeballs have always been contentious topic here in this state house. Both the pumpkins and ortho ophthalmologists work very closely today and will continue to do so whether this still passes or doesn't pass. OPR is the regulating body that reviews all scope and expansions for more than 50 professionals. This chamber has always had faith in OPI's recommendations as the regulators of professions. You may rest assured education, training, continuing education, and patient safety have all been considered in this bill. With the additional education training requirements in this bill, Vermont will have the most highly skilled optometrists in the country exactly what Vermont needs. Bipartisanship support and with over half of this chamber signed on to this bill. S 64 is a measured patient focused proposal that builds on work this legislature has considered over multiple sessions. At its core, this bill is about access to care, timely treatment, recruiting doctors to Vermont, and making practical use of Vermont's existing health care workforce, particularly in rural and underserved communities. Improving rural health care in Vermont is a priority in session. Currently, optometrists complete four years of postgraduate doctoral education, extensive classroom instructions in ocular disease and pharmacology, and thousands of hours of supervised clinical training, diagnosing and managing eye conditions in real world settings, their competency is further reinforced through national board examinations, state licensure requirements, and ongoing continuing medical education. This bill does not create a new profession. It does not lower standards or eliminate oversight. It relies on existing licensure, OPR and the board of optometry regulations to find education and training requirements and well established standards of care. It does allow optometrists who choose to take and pass additional boards perform both proctored clinical procedures and hours in a 10 continuing education. Beyond their current requirements of licensure to obtain an advanced therapeutic procedure specialty license. It's allowing them to perform certain laser and minor surgical eye procedures currently outside of most optometric scope of practice. S64 simply updates Vermont law to reflect modern optometric clinic clinical practice in the way primary eye care is delivered safely in many other states today. This legislation also aligns with broader policy goals this body has repeatedly supported, improving access to care, close to home, reducing unnecessary referrals and delays, supporting team based care, and making the health care work more efficiently for patients. Vermont faces persistent challenges accessing eye care, especially as our population ages and chronic eye conditions become more prevalent. Long wait times, geographic barriers and provider shortages can delay diagnosis and treatment, sometimes with permanent consequences. S sixty four is designed to address those challenges by allowing optometrists who are already licensed, regulated, and extensively trained to practice at the top of their education and competence. Bottom line, s 64 means faster access to treatment, fewer trips out of the community, reduced health care costs, an attractive scope of practice for doctors who are judging Vermont versus other states, and a healthcare system that uses its trained professionals effectively while maintaining patient safety as the top priority. So I just wanted to go over a couple of those things. S 64 expands optometric scope of practice for licensees with the required education, training, experience and testing. It creates an advanced therapeutic practice procedures, specialty credential and identify special surgical laser and injection procedures the specialty holder may perform as well as procedures optometrists are prohibited from performing is in this bill. It also clarifies and refines the duties of optometrists. The 2023 revised report found that optometry students practice standard opt optometric procedures on live patients, but for these advanced procedures, the majority of schools provide skills trainings primarily in lab simulations or on models. We heard a lot of that testimony, and it was a concern. Based on its findings, OPR recommended additional hands on skills training on human subjects to sufficiently complete advanced procedures, training, and ensure public safety. With the additional training and demonstrated competency through a written examination and a skills examination, OPR determined optometrists can safely perform the advanced surgical laser injection procedures in f sixty four. OPR's revised report on expanding optometry scope of practice recommends allowing the expansion with additional safeguards. S 64 includes following, only the named procedures are permitted in this bill, Prohibited procedures are explicitly listed in this bill. Optometrists who graduated prior to 2019 must complete an approved thirty two hour postgraduate course on the advanced procedures. All optometrists who pursue the specialty must pay a $100 specialty fee and complete a minimum of eight hours of in person clinical training and experience on live human patients performing specific procedures under the supervision of a qualified proctor. Specialty applicants must pass national written and clinical examinations including skills examinations. And once credentialed, the specialty holder must report to the board any adverse events related to the advanced procedure within thirty days. Not all 168 Vermont licensed optometrists will elect to do the training and testing necessary to obtain the advanced procedure specialty. Optometrists with the specialty will choose whether they want to offer any, some or all the advanced procedures in their practice. And like in all other regulated professionals, optometrists with the specialty will have an independent obligation exercise professional judgment

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: in

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: the performance of licensed activities and to stay within their competent and safe scope of practice. This means that an optometrist who has not maintained competency in advanced procedure is not permitted for not permitted to perform even though they have the specialty. Any member of the public including patients, their relatives or friends, doctors, optometrists, medical staff, or anyone else can make a complaint to OBR. In addition, s 64 requires optometrists report an adverse event related to advanced procedures as I stated earlier within thirty days. There were 14 states, there are now 15 states, Kansas being the latest. Currently to allow an expanded scope of practice for optometrists that is substantially similar to the scope allowed in this bill and have less stringent requirements. Has 33 ophthalmologists and a 160 optometrists for your information. Senate health and welfare her testimony that almost every county in Vermont has at least three optometrists, significantly greater numbers and more widespread than ortho ortho said that wrong. The committee also heard that OPR was not aware this is important. The committee also heard that OPR was not aware of any malpractice or complaint data demonstrating optometrists with advanced training have higher rates than ophthalmologists of errors, complications, or bad outcomes. Now I'm gonna go through some of the sections of the bill or all of them briefly. Section one, this section amends the definition of practice of optometry to adding list of procedures that are within the scope of practice of an optometrist holding the advanced therapeutic procedures specialty established in section four including certain surgeries, laser procedures, and injections. It also adds definitions of adverse event and therapeutic pharmaceutical agent. Section two. This section will require that optometrists holding an advanced therapeutic procedure specialty complete an additional five hours of continuing education and advanced procedures during each two year licensor licensure period in addition to the forty hours currently required for all optometrists. Section three. This section prohibits an optometrist from performing an othema an ophthalmic surgeries or injections procedures other than those listed in section one and provides you a list of 23 specific procedures or categories of procedures that optometrists are prohibited from performing as listed in this bill. It also prohibits an optometrist for prescribing or administering a schedule one or two control substance except for hydrocodone, as well as analgesics, such as an example is that would be Vicodin. Now would you would be allowed to, would be allowed for optometrist prescriber administer but without refills, which is important, If not, more for than a seventy two hour period. Section four. This section creates a new subchapter in the optometry chapter of the advanced therapeutic procedures specialty. It authorizes the board of optometry to grant the specialty to an applicant who is a licensed optometrist. Meets educational demonstrated competency requirements has completed specific examination requirements. Section five. This section moves the only remaining section in 26 b s a a chapter 30, sub chapter five, and the sub chapter one of that chapters in sub section four and actually new sub chapter as sec as sub chapter five. The effective date in this bill right here is the act would take effect on 01/01/2027, and we'll discuss that at a later point. At the end of the day, f 64 is not about one profession versus another. It's about how we as policymakers ensure that Vermonters receive timely, high quality and formal care healthcare systems under real strength. Vermont's healthcare future depends on providers working together, each practicing within clearly defined roles, strong oversight and the shared goal of better patient outcomes. S-sixty four reflects that approach. It does not replace collaboration. It strengthens it by reducing unnecessary delays, referrals and handoffs that drive up costs and push care further from home. When patients can't receive appropriate care from a qualified provider without waiting months or traveling hours outcomes improve. The providers are able to practice to the full extent of their education and training within clear statutory limits, the system works more efficiently. And when care is delivered earlier and close to home, costs are contained for patients, families and the system as a whole. This legislature has repeatedly said that access, affordability, the workforce sustainability must guide our healthcare decisions. It uses the workforce we already have. It preserves oversight and safety. This bill reflects a health care system that works better when professionals work together. Patients are at the center. The law keeps pace with education and clinical reality. Just wanna say that I worked, pretty hard on this bill, and I worked closely with OPR, and they're the ones in the middle. They're the ones that have to determine whether or not this legislation will harm someone or not harm someone.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: They're the ones that make those decisions,

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: And we we hold them to a very, very high regard in this in this senate. And so, with that being said, I I I sincerely hope that we pass s 64. I urge you to support it. Thank you. Also, the vote was three to two, and some of the witnesses we heard from were Jennifer Carvey to my left, Jen call Cohen and Emily Carr from OPR, Matthew Greenberg from our board of medical practice, Jess Jessica Menally of the Vermont Ophthalmological Society, Jeff Young, Christopher Brady, and Wendy Hoole, Diva Mara in ophthalmology, resident of the Diamond Hitchcock Medical Center, Alicia Feis, and Amy Cuerto of the American Academy of Optometry, Daniel Phillips, Tina Kesha, and Dean Baruth, Optometric Association, and May Lightsizer, doctor of optometry. And, again, it the vote was three two. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Recognize the senator from Chittenden North, senator Mattos, for the report of the committee on finance.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate finance, took a look at the s 64 and the fees involved in s 64. And, what's involved here for optometrists is they'll still have their regular license, and then there'll be a specialty license that they have to apply for at OPR, and that's a $100. So based on the projected uptake of the specialty license, the fees raised by the specialty license will be about $55,000. OPR, spoke to the $100 license specialty license fee as being sufficient for covering the the cost for administering those licenses. And we heard from our legislative council, our joint fiscal office, and the office of professional regulation. And on a vote of seven zero zero, we ask for the senate's support.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I now recognize the senator from Franklin, senator Norris, the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: Thank you, mister president. That 64 came to your senate appropriations committee for review. And after taking a close look at this, we could not find any place within the bill that asked for any appropriations or needed any appropriations. The senator from Chittenden North stole half of my report here in reference to the licensing fee. So, because there's no appropriations needed, I'm not gonna be able to use the favorite term I like to use as de minimis.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: So I

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: can't use that term in such a coincidence. So it came out of your, senate appropriations on a vote of five zero two. We ask for senate support. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I now recognize the senator from Orleans for an amendment to be considered found on page eleven twenty of your calendar as I understand it.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Thank you, mister president. So in the underlying bill as introduced under the page 13 of 13 at the bottom on 18, says this act shall take effect on 01/01/2027. OPR said that they wish they could push it back a few more months, and so that was so that they could give more time for rules and for IT setup and implementation. And so that's what drove this amendment is because OPR request it. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. We did not take this, amendment up in committee. However, it was in the testimony from the office of professional regulation. So unless I hear a human cry from anyone on my committee, I think this is a good change. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I hear no crying, so we will move on. The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by senator Morley? Are you ready for the question? So all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have amended the bill as offered by the senator from Orleans. Question now is, shall shall the bill be read a third time? Senator from Franklin.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: Thank you, mister president. I rise in support of s 64, which modernizes the scope of practice for optometrists in Vermont. I wanna thank the senate committee on government operations and the committee on health and welfare for the diligent work on this bill. As a sponsor and as a senator representing rural Vermont, it is critically important to me that this legislation expands access to essential health care in every corner of our state. This bill will help Vermont most importantly increase access to all care for Vermonters, while also allowing us to be competitive when attracting new professionals. The impact on rural communities cannot be overstated. Today, a patient in a rural county may have to drive hours for a routine five minute laser procedure. Allowing local optometrists to perform these services removes unnecessary geographic barriers, reduces travel cost for families and ensures that seniors can receive specialized eye treatment in the communities where they live. The Office of Professional Regulations has made clear that this expansion of scope is paired with rigorous educational and competency requirements to uphold the highest standards of patient safety. The bill clearly defines which procedures are permitted and includes a prohibited list to adjust concerns and provide clarity. We have long trusted the office of professional regulations to safeguard the public and to and their thorough report demonstrates that it's time to allow accomplishes to practice to the fullest of their education and training. This is a tripartisan bill such as the senator from Rutland, the senior senator from Rutland stated earlier. Many signatures on this bill. I urge my colleague my colleague to support this, and I thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Question is, shall we build senator from Addison?

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you. I just wanna echo a few of the things that my colleague from Franklin said. I was not originally supportive of this. When it was first proposed in around when I remember it first being proposed. It may have been proposed before this, it was around 2020. And that was when OPR came out with a report that was not recommending it. And I had concerns as the senator Franklin says I, I also, hold, OPR to high standards and trust their recommendations so I was not supportive of it. I met with a lot of optometrists and ophthalmologists and was like, I don't know who. But it's come a long way. OPR has done another study, updated their recommendations. And Mr. President, more states have also moved in this direction. So we have the the knowledge from how this has worked in other states and and I am very supportive. I'm a co sponsor on this tripartisan bill and, urge the body to support it and, thank the two committees that worked on it. I've served on both of them as this has gone through in past years and glad to see it come to the floor. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, Mr. President. Can I interrogate the reporter of the bill, please?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Reporters interrogated. I as one

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: have a tremendous respect for OPR. I've got, I don't know how many licenses I've got there way too many. And so I, the trust that I have in them always is great. Also as a business owner of probably too many businesses as well, one of the deciding factors for me lots of times are what insurance companies have to say. I'm wondering if any of the optometrists or anyone had anything to say about the insurance companies having any worry about the scope of practice.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Yes, mister president. There was some discussion on that. It didn't seem like it was a concern that prices were gonna go sky high or or lower for that matter.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: I think I think the report

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: of the bill.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: I will echo the comments from the senators have already spoken as, somebody in a very rural area, and, relationships with the optometrists in our areas. I've got three of them that, are in, big support of this bill. I've been I I just I just like that when we can do, the work locally, where my people don't have travel at large distances, and and have, big delays as far as the type of treatment that they're looking for. Anytime that we can have that as, for me as a big win. And for all of mine, I do have concerns about people messing with people's eyeballs. That's one of the reasons why I never got laser surgery to be honest, with myself. I just said, well, if there was one that was gonna go wrong, well, I'm not a candidate. But I feel comfortable voting for this bill. I'm glad it came forward. I do appreciate the travel length that it went and that actually gives me, I know lots of times it's lots of times it's like probably not the way people want. But the travel time of this bill and all the places that it went and all the discussions that it had and all the opposition, I even appreciated the opposition to this bill as well because for the longest time, I wasn't really sure whether I could vote for it or not. So I appreciate that this bill has made it to this point, and I like to try partisanship, and I will be supporting this bill. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. So that I can be clear eyed on voting

[Senator Christopher Bray (Addison)]: for this

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: bill, I would like to

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: inquire Presenter is interrogated.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: And I I have questions I can take if you get the answers at third reading or when we're off the floor. But you mentioned other states, also the senator from Addison mentioned that there are many states. I didn't I didn't know if you had a number. How many other states allow the optometrist to perform these procedures? And then another second question, I'll just ask them both at same time. You mentioned the report from OPR that they did see any differences in negative outcomes from these procedures. And I didn't know if that was a national study or just general malpractices between the two professions, or was it specifically about bad outcomes from when optometrists are performing these these procedures?

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: So the first one, mister president, was there are currently 15 states that are allowing a pump just to do this. That's the first question. And secondly was, the what was the second one?

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: About the report that OPR did that

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: That one, I'm not positive about. I I I think it's they looked across the country at that, but not absolutely 100% positive. So I would wish that I could get the answer for the senator after second week.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: I thank the senator and thank the president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden)]: Oh, thank you, mister president. This is an unusual bill for our committee. Ordinarily, we like to have the bill come out with a majority of members, at a four one or five zero vote, and that's been consistent for us. This one is three two. It is controversial. There's no question about it. And, so and mister president, right up front, I'm one of the two. I'll share that with you. But I would also like to share, if I may, Mr. President, some testimony that we've received from the chair of the Board of Medical Practice who has experience in overseeing surgical practice, which is ophthalmology currently. And now the bill will extend surgery to optometrists should that should it go through. So with your permission, I'd like to go through some data and some information that may help shine a light on some of the comments that have been made favorable, but will maybe offer alternative thoughts.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: You may.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. So when the board of medical practice completed its study, in '23, it it gave its report. The board unanimously, initially, in '23 voted against supporting the expanded expansion of this scope for optometry. Then it was revisited in January 25. Last January. And no formal vote was taken, but that remained, at the Board of Medical Practice. But the report that came out from OPR was identical. There was no new evidence presented to encourage and to state that the sunrise should go forward. So I want that to be very clear. The original report is the same report that was used to put this bill in motion. In our so there are three primary current concerns that have come out from a look at this from current, board of medical from the board of medical practice. And by the way, the chair of the Board of Medical Practice at this time is currently the Commissioner of Health. So I I have a great deal and I will say right up front a huge amount of respect both for OPR and for, the the Board of Medical Practice. The OPR found insufficient evidence that scope expansion would improve access. The OPR report found insufficient evidence that scope of expansion scope expansion would impact cost. The board had serious concerns. I'm talking about the board of medical practice understood. I understand there's a difference here between OPR and the board. The Board had serious concerns that allowing optometrists who have significantly less surgical surgical training than ophthalmologists to perform ocular surgery could lead to worse patient outcomes. It's important to understand that there's a difference in training even with the additional training that's included in the bill is significantly different. So a little bit about the expansion of that the what this would do to improve access. And I'm continuing on with the report from the Board of Medical Practice as they have done research on this, and it balances out some of the comments that we've heard from, from others. There's little research evaluating whether expanding the scope of optometry improves access. A 2023 study published in the Journal of American Medical Association Ophthalmology evaluated the impact of optometrists performing laser laser procedures in states where this expansion has already occurred. The findings from that national study. Despite optometrists performing up to 37.1 of certain laser procedures in Oklahoma, where this is a, there's a high concentration, there was no meaningful reduction in patient travel times. In some cases, patients actually had to travel further to reach an optometrist performing laser surgery than an ophthalmologist. The study concluded that expanding optometrist privileges had no measurable impact on increasing access to care. We know there's no in in our state, there's no identified shortage of ophthalmological services in our state. Alright. And and and as evidence of that, in 2020, the Eye Surgery Center in South Burlington submitted a certificate of need to the Green Mountain Care Board to expand services, which was denied because it was indicated that surgical services were already adequate. So we do have challenges in terms of optometric, access. And right now, we know if looking at data that has come to us from our state, there are wait times for optometry access for routine optometric routine optometric care. In Rutland alone, there's a ten month wait period, so expanding the scope does nothing to address the real problem that Vermont lacks enough optometrists to meet current demand for routine care. It's an issue. We've heard about workforce issues. We know that both of that the only place in the state where we see a low number of optometrists is in Grand Isle and Essex County. So Essex County has a point, in the more optometrists. That Jude so we know there's a a strong geographic distribution across the state for both both professions. The question about will, this expansion lower costs. The the report, that has come to us noted that ophthalmologists frequently find patients referred by optometrists for procedures are often better served by more conservative nonsurgical treatment. So we need to take care with what we're expanding. I know. Actually, that happened to me. I went to my optometrist who I value greatly and seek care on a regular basis, and he said you should go look, go to your ophthalmologist and see, do you need surgery? I did not need surgery. The optometrist wanted to would I think and suggested that he would have done had surgery. I'm glad I didn't have it because I don't like eye surgery so I'll have it sooner or later. All of this will as we get older, I suppose. So having surgical surgical solutions, when they're not needed can add cost rather than to reduce cost. The OPR reports final observation on cost reference reviews from states that had expanded opt optometry scope, and these reviews either lacked cost data entirely or found no evidence that the ex of the expansion on impacted costs. There is a lack of evidence here, and I know that as other states build their repertoire of, specialist optometrists, we may see some of that. But in this state, we have, very few of the of the complex procedures that are described in the bill. And we have ophthalmologists who currently take care of all those difficult, surgeries. To spread those surgeries across a broader number of professions, well, that will result in a lack of repetition by those practitioners. Because what we hear is it's repetition that provides for safety and good patient outcomes. In the case of an ophthalmologist, when they're going through clinical training, they perform, close to 500 different surgical procedures. And as we heard from the senator from Orleans, who did a very good job, thank you, the I shouldn't have looked at him. I'm

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: sorry. K.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden)]: The you know, optometrists use simulation, and we saw some of the simulations that they use their their sort of models, for surgery and injections. That's not the same as working on a human who has a, a medical history and a medical background, and it needs to be seen. We need to have folks seen clinically. There's there's also the concern about complications that was mentioned, and the lack of reported complications doesn't necessarily mean that complications are not occurring. It simply means that there may be underreported or misattributed. I will I will go into that. I think that's, something for another little research project. I I would like to say that, in 2016, there was a systematic review of, articles of more than a 180 studies concluding that higher surgical volume is directly correlated with better patient outcomes. That means the more you do, the better you get, and the better your patients, come out of that, surgery. So, mister president, I would say, in conclusion, expanding optometry surgical scope has not improved access in other states. Vermont has no demonstrated shortage of ophthalmological surge surgical covers coverage. Shifting surgeries to optometrists who receive less training than ophthalmologists, in particular clinical human training, that poses more of a risk for patient safety. The real issue Vermont faces is limited access to routine optometric care, not surgical care. Expanding scope won't solve the problem that we have in front of us. Mister president, I'd like if I might read, a very short comment from the governor of the state of New Mexico

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: You may.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden)]: Who vetoed this bill, a similar bill.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: You may.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden)]: And, if I might?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: May.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you. The honorable Javier Martinez, sent to the sent to the speaker of the house, talk from the governor of Mexico. I am vetoing this bill because it sets a dangerous precedent for allowing non surgeons non surgeons to perform surgical procedures. When changes are made to the scope of practice for health care providers, there are two main considerations. First, whether the change in scope increases access to care for patients, and second, whether the change will ensure good medical care for patients. I do not feel that this bill adequately meets that threshold. Mister mister president, I have no reservations that there are optometrists who we have in this state who might meet the criteria and have repetitive surgical experience to perform these within this scope. My concern is the expansion is huge. It's absolutely huge. Injections, multiple surgeries, and then part of the bill indicating that, what can't be done. We don't know what's outside of that can't be done. There may be other things we don't even know that we're approving. So, you know, this is difficult for me, mister president, because I know that it sounds good. The people who came to us who are optometrists, I talked with them out of session during session. They're very, good people. They're good practitioners in their in their area, but expanding scope at this time when we don't have the data from other states that indicates increased access when it when we don't have data that indicate indicates, errors and ongoing patient safety, that continues to be a concern. Mister president, I I voted no in committee, and I will continue to, vote no on this bill. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Orleans.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Yes, mister president. Think that OPR did a really good job vetting this bill, and safety is obviously a paramount of importance. And so I relied on them, and and I think that they're the experts in this. I didn't do all that research. I listened and read reports. I also think that what have we been talking about in this body? It's called healthcare transformation. You folks are gonna hear a lot more about that

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: coming up.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: And if we can't make this one small transformation in a in my my opinion, in a safe environment, procedures that are done safe safely, that's well regulated, then I question whether or not we're gonna be able to transform the health care system at all. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden)]: I will speak one more time, mister president. There is one tiny element that is not covered in the bill that I think it's important for us to understand. It does relate to patient safety. That is, should the bill go forward and we see a surgery performed that could be a complicated surgery and there is a complication, in the evening, you know, suppose the patient goes home, this is some most of this stuff is outpatient, Go home and then have a problem later on. One of the we didn't get a really good answer in committee about 20 fourseven coverage. So that would the optometrist be available? Right now ophthalmologists have, peers who cover, and ophthalmologists and optometrists do cover each other. They work together well. But we I didn't get a good sense that there would be coverage for the for the surgeries, whether it and one of the comments that we heard, in testimony was, well, probably the patient may have to go to the emergency department, and we're trying to avoid that. So just it's a concern. It's a patient safety concern, lack of twenty four seven coverage, and, lack of acknowledgement within the process. So thank you, mister Perchlik.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Might I ask a hopefully quick question of the presenter of the bill?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: I'm wondering, we heard a lot about some of the things that didn't show a significant impact in other states. Was was there anything that showed a significant increase in risk in the other states that have passed this or increasing complications?

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: No, Mr. President, I don't believe that there was.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: I thank the senator as someone who's had a lifetime of eye stuff. I've I've been told in the current state of things when I've called the ophthalmologist to go to the emergency room so that is already happening. I do support this bill and did not start there so I appreciate getting to say the report.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: I interrogate the reporter of the bill, please.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Reporter is interrogated.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: Thank you. Mister president, did the committee take testimony as to what an ophthalmologist costs an hour and or by procedure and what an optometrist does? And if our objective is, actually being, reining in health care costs, did you take testimony about the cost differences between having an ophthalmologist, do surgery versus an optometrist?

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: No, mister president. I I don't recall that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: Okay. Thank you. I'm probably the blindest most blind person in this body in this chamber. Thank you. I've been involved with this bill from the beginning. We have reigned in the procedures. This iteration has many fewer procedures than we initially looked at, I believe. You cannot get better at something if you're not allowed to practice it. So I look forward to our optometrists getting better and better at this. Those that are trained that are able to do this now, but practice in their medical training. I encourage us all to support this bill. The cost between an optometrist visit and an ophthalmologist visit is substantial. And, for those of you who've spent as much time in both of their offices as I have, I encourage you to support this bill and let our we have to enable our optometrists to grow in their practice, and, all of us as individuals need to grow in our work and our capability. So I encourage us to support this bill, reduce health care costs, and enable the optometrists to, grow in their work as well. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator, it sounded to me like you just proved that you knew the answer to the question you asked, which I think is a violation of rules just to point out. Senator from Windsor?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: I asked if they had taken testimony on it. I have a play.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Yeah. Yeah. Are

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: you ready for the question? If so, the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden)]: Nay. The

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you've ordered third reading of s 64. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. As I promised, that was our last bill for the day. We will wind up, gabbling out, I believe, right at four, which I had said to people was a hard stop today. That's great. The one thing before I make my motion Mr. President, I just want to commend the way the discussion went forward today. We had a lot of amendments for the most part, those went through the committee. We saw a great work on the part of the committees to come toward the proposal of the amendments. So I especially want to congratulate the committee on natural resources for the work they did getting closer to those proposals. The other thing I just want to mention, Mr. President, is as I said, there is no notice calendar. We did not clear the calendar today, but one more longish session tomorrow will take us literally down to a clean calendar. That means we will start next week with some extra time for committees. So please do come prepared tomorrow for one last intense session, and then we'll go back to the more relaxed how we can reduce. With that, mister president, I would move that senate stand in adjournment until Friday at 11:30 03/27/2026.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are there any announcements? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm loath to say I'll try to make this brief, but I know we all wanna go. I did want to make this announcement before tomorrow to to give folks time to to really think about this. I rise to make an announcement, Mr. President, the chair of the ethics panel. I think now it's becoming more of a part of our public discourse that we have an increase in the number of ethics complaints that we receive. And we have not necessarily been able to get together lately. That all said, Mr. President, we also now have discrimination under our charge. And so what we end up, you know, fielding are a lot of concerns about conflict. Conflict that is highly unlikely to rise to the level of something that violates the law or violates our duties or our code of ethics. We, as a panel, have talked for a while about trying to have another session. And I say another one, but the last one last year was very informal. But having a session, and hopefully next week, I've spoken a little bit to the pro tem and the secretary, on the spectrum between decorum discrimination, and ethics violations, that we consider. And one of the things I just wanted to highlight is, our last broad discussion of, our duties as an ethics panel led us to, really hear and understand and underscored by case law across the country that our speech is most heavily protected as legislators when we are exercising that freedom of speech on the floor. That is the time that our constituents see us do the work that they have sent us here to do in the light of day and in a way that, you know, we are expecting ourselves to be seen and to be viewed and to be hopefully proud of our conduct. And while our speech is free, and highly protected on the floor, you know, that's also where our goal should be to hold each other accountable to a sense of decorum and what we want for institution and our debate overall. So that's all I really, wanted to say by way of background. As we prepare for a session next week, we've had a tough week, We've talked a lot about the rules and, decorum unspoken rules that we follow. And if people want to jot down notes of things they have questions about or that they want to raise, we certainly welcome that and we'll try to work with all of the committee chairs who I know have lost time in committee to make sure, we do it at an appropriate time. But this is a lull in session. It's been a tough week. We have a lot of new folks and I know new folks have been through a crossover and an end of session. But I think any veteran will tell you there's a difference when you're in the second year of the biennium between what that crossover and particularly that end of session tend to look like and feel like. So, you know, this is to say nothing about the debates we've had this week, except a lot of questions have come up. I hope it's okay if I say that the secretary, these are the weeks he finds most interesting because we are doing the work our constituents asked us to do. We do raise the temperature because our constituents want to see our passion and want to see us fight for them. And we just want to make sure that that temperature stays tolerable for all of us. Thank you, and please look out for that announcement.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are there any announcements? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Mister president, the senate government operations committee will not meet today.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are there any further announcements? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate institutions, please stop by five minutes after the gavel. We may have, folks there waiting for us.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor, Majority Leader; Chair, Economic Development)]: Thank you. Senate Economic Development Housing and General Affairs will meet at 08:30 tomorrow morning. We have a number of amendments still to hear.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, the senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate stand in adjournment until 11:30AM, Friday, 03/27/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it and we will stand in adjournment until 11:30 a. M. Friday 03/27/2026.