Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats. Good afternoon. The devotional today will be led by representative Michelle Bosch of Westminster.

[Representative Michelle Bos-Lun (Westminster)]: Good afternoon. Yesterday was World Cancer Day. I wasn't sure I would be back in the chamber in time, so I'm doing a World Cancer Day devotional today instead. Cancer has touched my life in many ways, as is the case for so many people. I lost two grandparents to cancer who passed at exactly my age, 59. My mother has had breast cancer and beat it twice. My brother was diagnosed with advanced cancer at age seven, 46, and I unexpectedly got a lung cancer diagnosis late last fall. A couple months before my diagnosis, I visited a friend in hospice that I had waited a long time to reconnect with, forty two years since our high school graduation. When we scheduled my visit visit to see her in Southern California, we did so with plans to share stories over several days, but her cancer progressed quickly. She told her husband she was waiting for me. When I arrived, she was alive but asleep, and she passed that same evening. Not the reunion either of us imagined. When my cancer was discovered two months later, there were many tests and labs and a lot of uncertainty. As details about my cancer began to emerge, I learned that some people with my diagnosis do well for years while others don't survive for even a couple. I found myself longing to fly to Ontario to reconnect with Maria, once my closest friend who I had not seen in thirty years. I didn't wait until it was convenient. Cancer has taught me both to expect surprises and to pay more attention to personal needs and dreams. I visited Maria last weekend and returned yesterday. A sad fact is that four in ten Vermonters are likely to get cancer. Over four thousand new cases are diagnosed every year. Some in the chamber have already had cancer and beat it, and several others are fighting it with me now. Having a number of cancer survivors participating in the legislature is a testament to science, to research, to modern medicine. Cancer treatments are getting more sophisticated and more effective, but are also ridiculously expensive. The medicine that keeps me alive costs $8,000 a month. Those without insurance and resources don't have access to care. The best way for us to avoid cancer is through prevention. Eat a healthy diet, lots of fresh vegetables and grains, don't smoke, get daily exercise. At least fifty percent of cancers can be prevented with diet and lifestyle. I am fighting my own cancer with targeted therapies ordered by my oncologist and also with an intensive whole foods plant based diet. A few things to know. Annual mammograms starting at age 40 can catch cancer early when it is most treatable. The cure rate for breast cancer is eighty eight percent. If you are 45 or older, I hope you have already had a colonoscopy. If you haven't, schedule one. It could save your life. That's what my friend died of that I visited last summer. Did you know a cough is often the only sign of lung cancer? Lung cancer strikes hundreds of thousands of nonsmokers as well as smokers annually and is the leading cause of cancer death. Ask your doctor for a chest x-ray if you have a cough that won't go away. If you have a family history of cancer, genetic testing may be something you want to consider to aid early detection. Screenings can help us catch cancer early when there are the best outcomes possible. Take advantage of these tools of modern medicine. But also don't worry, sixty percent of you will never get cancer. People you know and love will, however, and many already have. Remember to support science and research, Connect with your friends. Tell people you love them. Figure out what it is important that you want to do, and do it. And remember to eat your vegetables. The Cancer Caucus is hoping we don't get any new members.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members, we have one house bill for introduction today. House bill eight eighty eight is an act relating to passing a yield bill before town meeting day introduced by representative Olsen of Starksboro. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: H eight eight eight, an act relating to passing a yield bill before town meeting day.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Now the bill has been read the first time and is referred to the committee on ways and means. Members, we received requests to read two house concurrent resolution that the house and senate adopted pursuant to the consent calendar. The first is HCR one eighty two which is a house concurrent resolution designating 02/05/2026 as outdoor recreation day at the State House. Please listen to the reading of the resolution.

[House Reading Clerk (Name not stated)]: Whereas Vermont is proud of its unparalleled and diverse natural landscape and communities tied to outdoor recreation that are world class tourism destinations. And whereas our state's outdoor recreational assets consist of more than 11,500 miles of public access trails, including 217 miles of recreational rail trails, a 135,000 acres of wildlife management areas, 239,000 acres of state forests and parks, 99 picnic day use areas, a 196 fishing access points, and 20 alpine and 30 cross country ski areas. And whereas 93% of Vermonters annually participate in outdoor recreation. And in 2012, action resolves number 77, the general assembly designated skiing and snowboarding as the state's official winter sports. And whereas it is important that Vermont welcomes everyone to enjoy outdoor recreational pursuits and outdoor recreational venues embrace the intrinsic community values of inclusion and representation. And whereas outdoor recreation creates business opportunities, attracts new residents, and offers work work workforce pathways that incentivize young Vermonters to remain in the state. And whereas according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis in fiscal year twenty twenty three, businesses in all 14 counties involved in outdoor recreation generated $2,100,000,000 in economic impact, and the industry employed over 16,000 persons comprising just over 5% of the Vermont workforce. And whereas Move Forward Together Vermont, Vermont's statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan establishes a vision to foster healthy and vibrant communities through outdoor recreation. And whereas Vermont Outdoor Recreation Day is an occasion to celebrate the importance of outdoor recreation to Vermont's landscape, economy, quality of life, and the mental and physical well-being of Vermonters and visitors. Now therefore be it resolved by the senate and house of representatives that the general assembly designates 02/05/2026 as Vermont Outdoor Recreation Day at the state house, And be it further resolved that the secretary of state be directed to send a copy of this resolution to the secretary of commerce and community development, the secretary of natural resources, the commissioner of forests, parks, and recreation, and the commissioner of tourism and marketing.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Next is HCR one eighty three, which is a house concurrent resolution recognizing July 2026 as Park and Recreation Month in Vermont and designating 07/17/2026 as Vermont Park and Recreation Professionals Day in Vermont. Please listen to the reading of the resolution.

[House Reading Clerk (Name not stated)]: Whereas Vermont's park and recreation programs are an integral part of our state and local communities. And whereas their president's presence in a community promotes an active lifestyle, offers environmental protection, and serves as an economic resource. And whereas park and recreation programs support the effectiveness of therapeutic recreational services for persons with disabilities. And whereas in 1985, the National Recreation Park Association established July as park and recreation month. And in 2009, the US House of Representatives adopted HR two eighty eight, a resolution recognizing the importance of park and recreation facilities and expressing support for the designation of the month of July as National Park and Recreation Month. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the senate and the house of representatives that the general assembly recognizes July 2026 as Park and Recreation Month in Vermont and designates 07/17/2026 as Vermont Park and Recreation Professionals Day and be it further resolved that the secretary of state be directed to send a copy of this resolution to the Vermont Recreation Parks Association.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are there any announcements? Member from Weitzfield.

[Unidentified Representative (Waitsfield)]: Madam speaker, we heard the resolution naming today Vermont Outdoor Recreation Day. The outdoor industry contributes an estimated $2,000,000,000 to the state's economy and invites Vermonters and visitors to find joy, peace, and solitude in our mountains, rivers, and forests. This winter, Vermont finds itself in a position where our ski conditions are truly some of the best in the country. And as we face trying times in many aspects of our state government, particularly our budgets, I expect that this industry will be delivering some very welcome revenues to the state coffers this year. This is a winter to celebrate. And along those lines, I'd like to announce that Bolton Valley Ski Area will be hosting a legislative ski night on February 25 from five to 10PM. Details will be forthcoming. So madam speaker, would you join me in welcoming members of Vermont's outdoor economy to the people's house? They are seated in the balcony.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the guest of the member from Wakefield please rise and be recognized? Member from South Burlington.

[Unidentified Representative (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I rise today to introduce the members of the Vermont Recreation and Parks Association. We all know how important our town and city parks are for the health and well-being of our citizens. They provide gathering places for families and individuals of all ages and economic status regardless of their ability to pay for access. They provide a place where people can be physically active to reduce stress, which can improve their mental health. They also provide a place where neighbors can meet, which improves community connections. Madam speaker, please join me in welcoming these civic leaders to the State House today.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the guest member from South Burlington please rise and be recognized? Member from Bridgeport.

[Unidentified Representative]: Thank you, madam speaker. Today, I rise, to recognize today as Three Squares Vermont Awareness Day. Three Squares Vermont is or Three Squares is Vermont's name for the federal supplemental nutrition assistance program, and SNAP is administered here in Vermont through the Department for Children and Families. It is one of the most effective anti hunger programs in our country, providing nine meals for every one meal provided through the charitable food system. In Vermont, more than 63,000 people and over 38,000 households rely on Three Squares to help put food on the table, and more than 85% of participants are children, seniors, or people living with disabilities. This program supports Vermonters with privacy and dignity while also strengthening our local economy. Every dollar and three squares benefits and three squares benefits generates an estimated dollar and 50¢ in economic activity, supporting Vermont grocers, retailers, farmers, and local jobs. In fact, each month, over $12,000,000 in benefits are redeemed right here in our state. Madam speaker, it is my honor today to introduce the advocates and community leaders here with us who are working every day to end hunger in Vermont. Vermont Food Bank, NOFA Vermont, hungry Hunger Free Vermont, the Vermont Food Security Coalition, and our neighbors and community members from throughout the state. I hope the body will join me in welcoming them. They're standing up in the balcony.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the guest member from Bridgeport please rise and be recognized? Member from Barrytown.

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Madam speaker, pursuant to house rule 51, I move that the committee on environment be relieved of further consideration of house bill h 70, which is an act relating to the inclusion of use value appraisal land and the conserved land inventory.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Barrytown moves that the committee on environment be relieved of House Bill 70 and be members.

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Age 70?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Thank you for your patience members. I want to get this right. Member from Barrytown moves that the committee on environment be relieved of House Bill 70 which is an inclusion of the use of value appraisal land conserve land inventory and that it be placed on the calendar for business on the next day. Thank you for your patience. It's been a while since I've done that one. Are you ready for the question? Member from Essex Junction. Madam speaker, may we have a recess? Okay. The house will stand in recess for a minute. Will the house the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Members, question is shall the committee on environment be relieved of house bill 70, a bill about inclusion of use value appraisal land and conserve land inventory and be put on the notice calendar for the next legislative day. Are you ready for the question? Member from Newberry. Thank

[Representative Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: you madam speaker. Just to ensure, clarity with tomorrow's journal, I demand the yeas and nays.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Newbury request that when the vote is taken, it be taken by roll. Is the member sustained? The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it be taken by roll. Member from Burlington.

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Point of inquiry, madam speaker.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Burlington, what is your point of inquiry?

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Is the motion, allowable to be debated?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: It is.

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, may I interrogate the the, maker of the motion?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Barrytown is interrogated. I would like to remind members that debate is allowed on this topic, but it is very much narrowed to the motion itself.

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Thank you, madam speaker, for the reminder. Madam speaker, why should I vote yes to move this bill to the floor?

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Thank you for the question, member. We should all vote yes to move this bill to the floor because we have a bottleneck in this building, and it's time to break it down.

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Thank you, member.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: For the question. If so, member from member from Whitingham.

[Representative Emily Carris Duncan (Whitingham)]: Thank you, madam speaker. May I interrogate the maker of this motion?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Barrytown is interrogated.

[Representative Emily Carris Duncan (Whitingham)]: Is there a specific reason why we should be moving this to the floor now?

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Thank you, member. It has become apparent that in this body, a certain committee is unwilling to move bills regarding housing, energy, and other things, and it's time for this body to move legislation that the state of Vermont and all Vermonters sent us here to

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: move. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Arsenault of Williston.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: No. Two minutes. Will the house please come to order? Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? I would like to remind members that we are in the middle of a roll call vote. Members and guests are prohibited from using computers, phones or any type of an electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes and conversation during a roll call. When the clerk calls your name, please answer in a loud and clear voice so the clerk can accurately record your votes. The question is, shall the committee on environment be relieved of house bill 70 and the same be placed on the notice calendar for the next legislative day? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Austin of Colchester. No. Bailey of Hyde Park. Yes. Bartholomew of Heartland. No. Bartley of Fairfax. Yes. Rebecca of Winooski. No. Byrong of Regents. Bishop of Colchester. No. Black of Essex. No. Bloomley of Burlington.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: No.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Boslyn of Westminster.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Yep.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Washington Clarendon. Putnamary City.

[Representative Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Boyden of Cambridge. No. Brady of Williston. Branagan of Georgia. Yes. Brown of Richmond. No. Burditt of West Rutland. Burkhardt Brattleboro?

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: No.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Burrows West Windsor? Burditt of Cabot? Yes. Campbell, St. Johnsbury? Canfield at Fairhaven. No. Carris Duncan, At Whitingham. No. Casey, Montpelier. No. Casey of Hubbardton. Yes. Chapin at East Montpelier. Charlton at Yeah. Charlton at Chester. Yeah. Christie of Hartford. Gina of Burlington. No. Coffin of Cavendish.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Cole of Hartford? No. Conlon at Cornwall? No. Cooper Pownell? Corcoran Bennington? No. Critchlow, Colchester? Demar of Venusburg.

[Representative Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Dickinson of Saint Albans Town. Yes. Dobrovich Williamstown. Yes. Dodge of Essex. No. Dolan Essex Junction. No. Dolgin at Saint Johnsbury. Donahue of Northfield? Yes. Duke of Burlington?

[Representative Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: No.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Durfee of Shaftsbury? No. Eastes of Guildford? Emmons of Springfield. No. Feltus of Linden.

[Representative Martha Feltus (Lyndon)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Galfetti of Barrytown. Yes. Gary Fono of Essex. No. Gorman of Rockingham. Good now, Brattleboro.

[Representative Ian Goodnow (Brattleboro)]: No.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Ghostland Of Northfield. Yeah. Granting a Jericho. No. Greer Bennington.

[Representative Emily Carris Duncan (Whitingham)]: No.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Urguire Fairfield. Hango Brickshear? Yes. Harpaul Glover? No. Harvey of Castleton?

[Unidentified Representative (multiple brief interventions)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Patrick of Burlington? Nope. Higley of Lowell?

[Unidentified Representative (multiple brief interventions)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Holcomb Norwich? Cooper Randolph? No. Uber Burlington? Houghton of Essex Junction?

[Representative Lori Houghton (Essex Junction)]: No.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Howard or Rutland City? No. Holland or Rutland Town?

[Representative Christopher Howland (Rutland Town)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Point Of Hartford? Hunter Manchester. Yep. James Manchester. No. Kasenska. Kasenska Burke. Keyser of Rutland City? Yes. Campbell Woodstock? No. Klepner, Burlington? No. Kornheiser, Battleboro? No. Crest Nile, South Burlington? No. Labor Morgan? Molly or Shelburne. No. Malone to South Burlington.

[Representative Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: No.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Lomono Morristown. La Russia Franklin. Let's give Stowe. Yes. Logan to Burlington. Long and Newfane. No. Leaders of Lincoln.

[Representative Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: No.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Unile of Saint Albans City. Yes. McGuire of Rutland City.

[Unidentified Representative (multiple brief interventions)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Mollie of Pittsford. Mark Otta Coventry? No. Maslyn Thetford? No. McKenna Montpelier? No. McCoy Pultney? No. McFondaberry Town? McGillop Report. No. Nicholas of Milton.

[Representative Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Mollie Callis. No. Meniere, South Burlington. Morgan Ela Milton?

[Representative Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: Yeah.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Morgan Emma Milton? Yes. Morris Springfield? No. Morrisia Bennington? Mora Weston? Mollie S. Putney. Nelson at Derby. Nielsen at Brandon. Yes. Nigro Bennington. No. Martha Fairsburg.

[Unidentified Representative (multiple brief interventions)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Moise of Volkitt. New Jersey South Burlington? No. O'Brien of Tonbridge? No. O'Dea Burlington? No. Oliver Sheldon? Yes. Olsen of Starksboro? No. In Newport City. Yes. Parsons in Newbury. Yes. Haso of Colchester.

[House Reading Clerk (Name not stated)]: No.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Hinton Aldo Dorset. Boutin Heinzberg? No. Powers of Waterford? No. Priestley Bradford? No. Bridget Burditt Pollack? Yes. Quinby of London? Rachel's in Burlington?

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: No.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: It's like what's a Randolph? No. Shyam Middlebury? No. Sheldon of Middlebury? No. Sebelius of Dover? Southworth of Walden. Yes. Squirrel of Underhill. Steady Mill 10. Yes. Stevens of Waterbury. No. Stone of Burlington. Sweeney of Shelburne? No. Tiger Lovia Carris?

[Representative Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Taylor Milton?

[Unidentified Representative (Weston)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Taylor Bunden? Yes. Thomas Tomlinson Winooski? No. Torrey Morktown? Walker or Swanton. No. Was it Zach of Berry City? No. Waters Evans of Charlotte? No. Wells of Brownington? No. White Oatesfield? No. White Bethel. Winter Bloodlow. Yes. Water Waterbury. No. Yakavonia Morristown. Burditt, West Broughton, Burrows of West Windsor, Christie of Hartford, Cooper of Pownal, Eastes of Guildford, Cooper Burlington. Cooper Burlington. I'm sorry. Randolph. I apologize. Cooper Randolph, got your vote the first time. Cooper Burlington absent. Hoyt of Hartford, Logan of Burlington, Roecky of Putney, Nelson of Derby, Quimby of Linden, Sheldon of Middlebury, Squirrel of Underhill, and Wells of Brownington.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: For purpose of explanation, member from East Montpelier.

[Unidentified Representative (multiple brief interventions)]: Madam speaker, I vote no because the use value appraisal program is different than permanent land conservation and because the committee process would be critical to adequately considering the impact of this bill just assigned to your committee on house environment less than two weeks ago.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Manchester.

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Madam speaker, in this body, we're expected to make monumental decisions that impact the lives of Vermonters in many ways. We rely on our committees to do the careful legwork and to bring thoughtful, informed recommendations to the floor. This process matters, and that's why I vote no.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Burlington.

[Unidentified Representative]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: You may.

[Unidentified Representative]: I vote no. Vermonters have a tradition of hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreating on the lands of our great state.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: And member from Starksboro.

[Representative Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: May I explain my vote?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: You may.

[Representative Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: I voted no not because of the bill, but because of the process. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Barrytown.

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: You may.

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: I voted yes to fulfill my duty to my constituents and to all Vermonters. It is time for this body to get to work on legislation that will improve the lives of Vermonters and waste no more time on reintroducing catamounts when Vermonters are unhoused.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 48. Those voting no, 86. And the nays have it and you have declined to relieve the committee on environment of House Bill 70. Are there any further announcements? Member from Winooski.

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Madam speaker, while many of us are still processing what just happened with age 70, one of our members is many steps ahead or should I say half a century ahead. He's queuing up the member is queuing up a sound effect to jump scare your house health care committee, or maybe they're building food security coalitions or predicting future health and social justice policy needs beyond our imaginations, which has led many of us to wonder whether the member is in fact from the future. And honestly, if one day the member showed up on the floor whipping around a cape and said, I've come back to make sure Vermont gets universal health care, don't think any of us would be surprised. Madam speaker, may I quote chat GPT?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: You may.

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Between thinking miles outside the box and having suspiciously quick brainpower, I'm not saying it's an AI powered brain, but I'm also not not saying it. But all jokes aside, the member from Burlington brings joy, brings people together, and constantly challenges us to be more ethical and equitable in how we take care of Vermonters. We're grateful to have you here, member.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Happy birthday, member. Are there any further announcements? Member from Weitzfield.

[Unidentified Representative (Waitsfield)]: Madam speaker, just a reminder that this afternoon there will be a one hour meeting on the subject of education reform in Room 11 at 04:30. Chairs of the house committee on ways and means and education or their deputies will be in attendance to provide an update on their work this session. This meeting is the first in a series intended to keep interested members informed and to allow for dialogue on this important topic that affects all of our communities. All house members are welcome.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are there any further announcements? Member from Weston.

[Unidentified Representative (Weston)]: Madam speaker, the caucus for Vermont's economy will be meeting tomorrow at noon in Pavilion 267, a room change. To continue our discussion on permitting reform in Vermont, we will be hearing from the commissioner and deputy commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation on their nascent permitting reforms.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are there any further announcements? Member from South Burlington.

[Unidentified Representative (South Burlington)]: I hate to double up on the announcements, but I have an extra special announcement. We are going to have a very special guest at the Working Vermonters Caucus tomorrow in Room 10 at 12:15. We will be joined by senator Bernie Sanders to talk about labor issues and working Vermonter topics. So I invite folks who are members of the caucus or others, to join us in Room 10.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none. Orders of the day. Members, we'll begin with house bill five, which is an act relating to hearsay exemption for a child under 16 years of age. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: H five, an act relating a hearsay exception for a child under 16 years of age.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Next is House Bill six twenty six which is an act relating to voyeurism and disclosure of explicit images without consent. Prior to third reading the member from Northfield offers an amendment that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'd like to request that the amendment be divided, and we first take up section first, and we second take up the the, section second and third.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The amendment is divisible.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The first section of amendment, as you can see, is simply removing the words or underclarment undergarment clad from the definition of intimate parts. And madam speaker, when I raised this discussion yesterday, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't an invasion of privacy to have someone look or photograph. Just that there was a question of the relative degree of invasion of privacy and the sanctions resulting. Madam Speaker, I made reference to the example of long johns, but if you look at actually the most formal dictionary definitions of what an undergarment clad means, Madam Seeker, if I remove my jacket on the floor, I would be clad in my undergarment because a shirt is under the jacket and that is the legal definition. So I was concerned about it being too broad and the members of the judiciary committee who are continue traditionally and continue to be very collaborative began discussing with me ways to perhaps narrow the definition to be more focused on what we really meant in this bill. But the more there was conversation including with other members of this body, the more it became clear that we have a much bigger problem and that is that invasion of privacy happens in a lot of situations that are much broader than what this bill addresses and protects. That we don't have the crime of invasion of privacy if your neighbor from his second story window has a telephoto lens and starts taking you pictures of you when you are fully clad, but maybe doing things that you wouldn't want your colleagues to see. Or more directly in today's day and age, if your children are in the backyard that has a fence around it and there's certainly expectation of privacy and that same nosy neighbor is taking pictures of your children's faces and putting them up on the internet. So Madam Speaker became clear and the chair of the committee said clearly this is something that the committee needs to look at in a much broader way. Meanwhile, the current language has been around for a long time and in fact is the standard language used in many other states when I started looking further. And so Madam Speaker I'd like to request permission to withdraw this part of the amendment.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Without objection leave is granted.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam Speaker going to the second part, I want to frame it slightly larger in the sense that there were several different areas that I brought up and had interrogation with some excellent adept answers from the members reporting the bill. But a couple of areas that did seem to be problematic. And two of them I want to reference that are not in this amendment and just fill the body in on why they are not. One of them had to do with the fact that the civil right of action that was established for the first section, the different violations under section 22, is it five. At any rate that first section and the fact that it didn't apply to the new crime of extortion that it seemed like parallel should be there. And in discussion and thinking it through it there were actually some distinctions. And maybe in the future, there will be a desire to look at civil liability, additional civil liability. But our existing civil liability does give the opportunity to sue up to six years prior. So, it didn't seem necessary to draw a complete comparison And in finally, the other component that raised a concern was the fact that we have a part of our statutes that talk about the limitations on lawsuits and set the default at six years. And then it lays out a number of different situations where it's longer than or shorter than six years. And I raised the question about why we wouldn't want to specifically include this new change in the statute of limitations and variation from the six year default. And again, the initial reaction of some of the folks in judiciary were, yeah, clearly we would want to be consistent with some of the others. Well Madam Speaker, turns out consistency would be a real challenge in this area because that section of civil law which is very old and has had different pieces added is also very incomplete. There are other pieces not added. It's one of our areas of law that really needs some updating and we certainly try to take those on from time to time when we're not under the crush of immediate crises. But that's really where that evaluation belongs. So, it is not included in the amendment today. The one piece that is included was an area where I had probably by far my most significant concern. And that was by making the offenses in question where the civil action was broadened from the default of six years to any time, that that may make a lot of sense going forward. It might make a lot of sense from the time at which we first established this as an illegal act. But going before that didn't quite seem fair. So Madam Speaker, amendment, the two parts here address the two the two offenses, the two sections that extend that statute of limitations so you can look back anytime for as many years as something could have happened. And it narrows them to the time after which we chose to make that action illegal, which in one section is 07/01/2025 and the other is 07/01/2015. Madam Speaker, as time goes on, that look back period, if you will, will go far beyond, the length of time between now and those dates because it will be open all the way back to the time that it was illegal. But we wouldn't be making someone liable in a a broader way with a broader statute of limitations for something that occurred before we had chosen as a legislature, as a society to say this is clearly illegal, it's not acceptable and you're unnoticed that it's not. So Madam Speaker, that is the piece of the amendment that I bring before the body again, which is in sections second and third of what appears in the calendar. And I would appreciate the body's support.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Pittsburgh.

[Unidentified Representative (Waitsfield)]: Madam Speaker, the committee did vote out the amendment favorably nine zero two.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Northfield in the second and third instances of amendment. Are you ready for the question? So all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: H six two six, an act relating to voyeurism and disclosure of sexually explicit images without consent.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the bill pass? Member from Williston.

[Representative Angela Arsenault (Williston)]: Madam speaker, I just wanted to make one quick correction to something I said yesterday and actually the member from Northfield just made the correction for me. It was regarding the explicit civil action and whether or not it applied to the new crime of sextortion. And as the member points out, it didn't it does not. I said that it did, so I wanted to just correct the record and explain that, there were, well thought out reasons for why it should not, namely that, civil remedies exist through common law and that, the other two sections of the areas of the statute to which that express private right of action applies require a disclosure of a non consensual disclosure of an image. Whereas, sextortion, only requires the threat to disclose. The disclosure hasn't yet occurred. So on balance, we felt that, relying on the existing common law civil remedies was appropriate.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Up next is house bill six eleven which is an act relating to the miscellaneous provisions affecting the department of Vermont Health Access member from Essex.

[Unidentified Representative]: Madam speaker, I move that we delay action on H611 one legislative day.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Essex moves that we postpone action on House Bill six eleven for one legislative day. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have postponed action in house bill six eleven for one legislative day. Members, the final bill on our action calendar today is house bill five forty which is an act relating to the recommendations of the post adjudication reparative program working group. The bill was referred to the committee on corrections and institutions which recommends that the bill ought to pass. The member from Burlington, representative Hedrick will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: H five forty. An act relating to the recommendations the post adjudication reparative program working group.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Burlington.

[Representative Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, your house committee for corrections and institutions, brings you bill h five forty, an act relating to the recommendations of the Post Adjudication Reparative Program Working Group. This bill was found favorable without amendment. The full text can be found on our committee page or simply by typing H540 into the search tab, and as there are no amendments, you can use the introduced bill. Members who were present for the 'twenty three-'twenty four biennium may recall Act 180 of 2024. With that act, we zeroed in on streamlining precharge reparative, resolution options. That bill also created this working group, the post adjudication reparative work, program working group, H540 follows the recommendations of that working group to put post adjudication reparative resolution options into practice. It is worth noting that this bill is without amendment and was found acceptable by all stakeholders. At its core, h four five forty expands Vermont's use of restorative justice by giving courts clearer authority to refer eligible cases to community reparative boards after someone has pled guilty. In other words, this bill strengthens post adjudication restorative justice as a sentencing option. It applies to nonviolent felonies, nonviolent misdemeanors, and certain other misdemeanors that all fall within the subject areas that our community justice centers are already authorized to work with. And importantly, H540 allows courts to make these referrals without requiring probation. If the reparative board declines the case or if the individual sentenced does not complete the program successfully, the case would then return to the courts for further sentencing. The bill also then directs court administrators, to create standardized referral forms and it gives the Supreme Court the authority to adopt procedural rules so that this process works very consistently across the state. With that background context and brief summary of intent, I will now walk us through the bill. Section one of the bill amends 13 BSA Section 7,030. In Section one A. Two, a brief edit changes the word board to program. This is simply to convey that we are creating a sentencing program option that exists beyond the board itself. The rest of that section that now appears struck in this section of the bill is actually just moving this language into new statute to be found in '28 VSA section nine thirteen. The intent of this move of that portion of the statute was simply to simplify where we go to look for the statute instructions and we'll see that new placement further down the bill. So section two of the bill amends 28 VSA, section nine ten. You will first note in the title of the section of the opening sentence that we are now consistent with the creation of a program and that that now matches the brief edit we made in section one from board to program. Line 16 of this section clarifies that the post adjudicative restorative justice program may be used as a standalone sentence or as a condition of sentence of probation. You will then note that we've struck out the use of this program as an option for civil contempt of a child support order. Testimony from the chief superior judge informed the committee that nobody within the working group had ever heard of this being done and the consensus of that working group was that this sort of use of the program was not appropriate to the work of their preparative boards. And then we're in Section three. There's A through F in there. Section three of the bill adds also Section nine thirteen to 28 VSA. Sections A and B, these are the existing law that I mentioned earlier in Section one. This is the language we struck from 13 VSA seventythirty. It's now placed in the more appropriate location with this new section of existing statute. Section A does not change existing law. It just simply clarifies what offenses qualify. And then Section B identifies that a referral is still a sentence. This is even true, as I've said, when the referral is not being used as a condition of probation. Again,

[Unidentified Representative (multiple brief interventions)]: if

[Representative Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: the offender does not successfully complete or the reparative board does not accept the case, the offender would return to court and the sentence would still be open. Section C then clarifies that current law that a reparative program can also be sentenced as a condition of probation. Section D lists factors that are to be weighed, not necessarily counted or tallied. The judge will have the final determination as to how these factors weigh in the decision and appropriateness of sentencing to a reparative program. I want to draw a specific note that the victim input is explicitly a factor courts must consider. These factors are not exclusive, but the courts should consider them. Such considerations are not currently in statute. These factors come from current CJCs based on experiences to date. Section E is an attempt at responding to concerns of geographic justice and equal access to this sort of sentencing across the state. And then Section F gives the Supreme Court the option to adopt rules specific to this reparative sentencing option. Similar rules already exist for other sentencing procedures, violations of probation, etcetera. This act would take effect on July 1. In considering this bill, we took testimony from the lead sponsor of the bill, legislative counsel from the Office of Legislative Counsel, the Community and Restorative Justice executive from the Department of Corrections, and the Chief Superior Judge of the Vermont judiciary. Madam Speaker, your Committee on Corrections and institutions voted in favor of this bill on a tally of ten zero one, and we look forward to the body's support.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? You ready for the question, member from South Burlington?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Yes. Madam speaker, because there are some overlap, with the judiciary committee's jurisdiction, we took a look at this bill and appreciate the good work that was done by the folks who brought this bill forward, and we voted, on a straw poll eight zero three in favor. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Members, that completes the orders of the day. Are there any announcements? Member from Burlington.

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam Speaker, I'd like to make an announcement via haiku. Whereas we hunger, be it resolved, breads and spreads upon adjournment.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, member from Pultechny, can you please offer us a motion to adjourn until Friday, February 6 at 09:30AM?

[Unidentified Representative (multiple brief interventions)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion this body stand on adjournment until Friday, 02/06/2026 at 09:30AM.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and this body