Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Yes.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. The devotional today will be led by representative Mike Molliecki and Amelia Struthers of Putney.

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: Good afternoon. Thanks for the opportunity to share and get our session started today. We're living in times that are pretty challenging and offer a lot of chaos, and we're hoping our song will remind us that here in Vermont, we've got it a lot better than in other places.

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Burlington)]: Then one night, 12AM, the telephone rings. Never know what midnight calls ring. The loss was huge. Family and friends came there to show how much

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members we have four house bills for introduction today. The first is house bill nine twenty three which is an act relating to people waiting for small schools and sparse school districts. Introduced by representatives Burkhardt of South Burlington and Holcomb of Norwich. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: H nine two three, an act relating to people waiting for small schools and sparse school districts.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Now the bill has been read the first time and is referred to the committee on education. House bill nine twenty four is an act relating to reporting on residential care homes introduced by representative leaders of Lincoln. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: H nine twenty four, an act relating to reporting on residential care homes.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Now the bill has been read the first time and is referred to the committee on human services. House bill nine twenty five is an act relating to congregate homes for adults with developmental or cognitive disability introduced by representative leaders of Lincoln. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: H925, an act relating to congregate homes for adults with a developmental or cognitive disability.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Now the bill has been read the first time and is referred to the committee on human services. And finally, bill nine twenty six is an act relating to taking account of a defendant's ability to pay for purposes of criminal fines, fees and surcharges introduced by representatives Cole of Hartford and Christie of Hartford. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: H nine two six. An act relating to taking account of a defendant's ability to pay for purposes of criminal fines, fees, and surcharges.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Now the bill has been read the first time and is referred to the committee on judiciary. We have now three senate bills for referral. Senate Bill 157 is an act relating to recovery resident certification introduced by senator Douglas and others. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: S one fifty seven, an act relating to recovery resident certification.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Now the bill has been read the first time and is referred to the committee on human services. Senate Bill 163 is an act relating to the role of advanced practice registered nurses in hospital care introduced by Senator White. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: S 163, an act relating to the role of advanced practice registered nurses in hospital care.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Now the bill has been read the first time and is referred to the committee on health care. And senate bill two fifty five is an act relating to establishing a pilot law enforcement governance council in Wyndham County introduced by senators Harrison and Hashim. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: S two fifty five, an act relating to establishing a pilot law enforcement governance council in Wyndham County.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Now the bill has been read the first time and is referred to the committee on government operations and military affairs. Members, we have a bill on the notice calendar requiring referral to a money committee pursuant to house rule 35 a. House bill eight fourteen is an act relating to neurological rights and the use of artificial intelligence technology in health and human services. Carrying an appropriation, the bill is referred to the committee on appropriations. Members, earlier today, the committee on government operations and military affairs reported favorably with amendment on house bill five nineteen which is an act relating to authorizing officers of the town of Randolph Police Department to enroll in group C of the Vermont State Employees Retirement System affecting the revenue of the state. The bill is referred to the committee on ways and means pursuant to house rule 35A. We now have two joint senate resolutions to take up at this time. The first is JRS 43 which is a joint resolution providing for a joint assembly to vote on the retention of six superior court judges. It was offered by Senator Calamore and was adopted on the part of the senate. Please listen to the reading of the resolution by title only.

[House Reading Clerk (Assistant Clerk)]: JRS 43, joint resolution providing for a joint assembly to vote on the retention of seven superior court judges and one magistrate.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Now this resolution has been read and it is placed on the calendar for action on the next legislative day pursuant to house rule 52. Next is JRS 44 which is a joint resolution relating to weekend adjournment on 03/13/2026. It was offered by senator Bartholomew and was read and adopted on the part of the senate. Please listen to the reading of the resolution.

[House Reading Clerk (Assistant Clerk)]: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives by when the two houses adjourn on Friday, 03/13/2026, it be to meet again no later than Tuesday, 03/17/2026.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Now you for the reading of the resolution and the question is shall the house adopt the resolution in concurrence? 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 the resolution is adopted in concurrence. Members, we have received a request to read a house concurrent resolution that the house and senate adopted pursuant to the consent calendar. HCR two zero eight is a house concurrent resolution honoring select board chair Alyssa Joyce Johnson on her dedicated service on behalf of the town of Waterbury and applauding the good work she facilitated during her tenure. Please listen to the reading of the resolution.

[House Reading Clerk (Assistant Clerk)]: Whereas Alyssa Johnson was elected to a one year term on the Waterbury Select Board on 03/02/2022 and was subsequently reelected to a three year term in 2023. And whereas she served as the chair of the select board from January 2025 through March 2026 while also being the youngest member of the board. And whereas Alyssa Johnson's service on behalf of the town of Waterbury, including as chair of the planning commission and as economic development director of revitalizing Waterbury, a local economic development organization exemplifies her love of her home community. And whereas she has volunteered countless hours of her time supporting fellow board members, town staff, and residents. And whereas this dynamic civil civic into official was a critical leader in the recovery and response effort after the floods of 07/20/2023 and 2024, deploying volunteers, removing debris, and checking in with affected residents and business owners. And whereas as a as a select board member, Alyssa Johnson advocated for investments in housing and flood resiliency project projects. And whereas she built a stellar reputation for being fair, honest, kind, a strong facilitator, a good listener, and always willing to provide much appreciated snacks. And whereas Alyssa Johnson is concluding her service on the Waterbury Select Board and her exemplary work merits legislative recognition. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the senate and house of representatives that the general assembly honors select board chair Alyssa Joyce Johnson for her dedicated service on behalf of the town of Waterbury and applause the good work she facilitated during her tenure and be it further resolved that the secretary of state be directed to send a copy of this resolution to Alyssa Johnson.

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

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. We just heard the reading of a resolution honoring our recently retired, Watbury Select Board Chair, Alyssa Johnson. And, I asked community members here to think about what it's like to be a community volunteer and essentially doing, the work of your municipality, at really at no compensation. And then add to that, you've dealt with not one, not two, but three floods during your term. You've oriented a new municipal manager. You've dealt with FEMA. You've dealt with multiple resignations in our municipal government. The municipal manager that was being oriented. The town planning department, the town clerk, the librarian, and on top of it all, a lot of local politics in Waterbury. So during this tumultuous time, we have had the wonderful good fortune to have Alyssa Johnson lead our select board and our community. Alyssa is a dedicated individual who is dedicated to effective local government. I have never in my life met anyone who absolutely geeks out about zoning and planning. Alyssa does. She is before she was select board member and before she was on the planning commission, she went to those meetings just because. The best things to know about Alyssa though, is her kind heart and her dedication to her work and to her community. So on behalf of my district mate and the member from Barrie City, please welcome Alyssa and her supporters up there, to the house. They're sitting in the gallery in the balcony.

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

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: Thank you, madam. Today was early educators day, and, many of us had lots of constituents here starting right from the start of the day getting coffee and then had a nice lunch over at the plaza. And it's one of the reasons my wife is here today as an early educator. We've certainly found how vital early educators are to helping our state run, and I certainly know how vital my life is to helping things allow me to be here by keeping the home fires burning and, more importantly, keeping the dog and the cat fed. So I hope you can join me in welcoming my wife, Amelia, here to the People's House.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the family member, the member from Putney, please rise and be recognized? Member from West Windsor.

[Representative John L. Bartholomew (Hartland/West Windsor)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, we have with us today in the house, youth leaders from across this great state who have been speaking today with members of the general assembly and the administration about issues of vital importance to them and their peers. They've come together in the people's house for outright Vermont's annual leadership day, focuses specifically on the rights and needs of Vermont's LGBTQ plus youth community. Outright Vermont has been building hope, equity, and power with the LGBTQ plus youth in our state since 1989. This is their twenty second annual leadership day. Please join me in giving a very warm welcome to outright Vermont members and staff and help me celebrate their work on behalf of and including Vermont's LGBTQ plus youth in this pivotal moment for their communities and for those who support and love them. They're seated in the balcony.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the guest of the member from West Windsor please rise and be recognized? Are there any further announcements? Member from Heartland.

[Representative John L. Bartholomew (Hartland/West Windsor)]: Madam speaker, what better way to relax is there after a riveting floor session than to listen to some good music? Farmers' night performances resume this evening. We will be featuring Voices for All Seasons, which is a community choir based in Morrisville, and they will be presenting an eclectic variety of popular music from the twentieth century and this century. Music from Cole Porter, Andrew Andrew Lloyd Weber, Rogers and Hammerstein, Jerome Kern, John Rutter, and others. And so that will be at 07:30.

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

[Representative Erin Brady (Williston)]: Thank you, madam speaker. As the mention as the member mentioned previously, today during the lunch hour, many of us participated in this year's early early childhood day at the legislature. For the thirty second year, this gathering of service providers and parents, teachers, students, advocates, and caretakers for Vermont's children gathered together to share with us their thoughts about the needs of Vermonters aged zero to eight and their families. Those of us who were able to attend heard from people around the state with a wide range of issues including medical care for families, early childhood education, emergency and affordable housing, child nutrition, and many other issues impacting thousands of Vermont children and their families. It was a pleasure to join them and I believe some of the events attendees are here with us in the balcony. Would you please help me welcome them to the people's house and thank them for their advocacy for our children?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the guest and the member from Williston please rise and be recognized? Are there any further announcements? Seeing none. Orders of the day. Members, we will begin with House Bill two zero five which is an act relating to agreements not to compete member from Burlington.

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I move that we delay action on house bill two zero five for yes, two more legislative days.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Burlington moves that we postpone action on house bill two zero five for two legislative days. 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 on house bill two zero five until Friday. Next up is house bill five twelve which is an act relating to the regulation of the event ticketing market, member from Whitingham.

[Unidentified Member from Winooski (Health Care Committee)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I also move that we delay action on this on h five twelve for one legislative day.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Whitingham moves that we postpone action on house bill five twelve 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 on house bill five twelve until tomorrow. Next up is house bill five eighty two which is an act relating to adult protective services. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (Assistant Clerk)]: H582, an act relating to adult protective services.

[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 thirty five which is an act relating to eliminating the department of corrections supervisory fees. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (Assistant Clerk)]: Page six thirty five. An act relating to eliminating Department of Corrections supervisory fees.

[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. Now we'll turn to House Bill five seventy three which is an act relating to the first certification of an emergency examination. The bill was referred to the committee on healthcare which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Winooski, representative Rebecca will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (Assistant Clerk)]: Page five seventy three, an act relating to the first certification of an emergency examination.

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

[Unidentified Member from Winooski (Health Care Committee)]: Madam speaker, before explaining h five seventy three, an act relating to the first certification of an emergency examination, I wanna begin with the foundation for this bill. What is an emergency mental health examination? An emergency examination is a legal and clinical process used when a person appears to be in immediate danger to themselves or to others due to a suspected acute mental health challenge. This is not routine care that we're gonna talk about. It is a crisis intervention. It's important that we center the people who are impacted by this bill. So let's take a moment to clarify exactly who we're talking about. We're gonna talk about folks who could be suicidal, who may be acutely psychotic, or showing high potential for risk of serious harm to either themselves or to others. So this could be you or I. It could be any one of our family members at any time. Mental health does not discriminate. We know that workers in community and social services are one point four seven times more likely to have severe depression than the general population. We know that workers in the arts, design, entertainment, sports, media, fields we all adore and benefit from, are one point three four times more likely to live with depression or anxiety. My point is that this law is changing something that will directly impact any one of us, our family members, and certainly important members of each of our communities. Now under Vermont law, a first certification for an emergency mental health examination authorizes a person to be held for an emergency examination. And within twenty four hours, a psychiatrist must then independently examine and certify that the person is in need of sorry. Within twenty four hours, a psychiatrist must independently examine and certify the person or the person has to be discharged. If the psychiatrist issues a second certification, the person may be held for up to seventy two additional hours and only pending voluntary admission or the filing of an application for involuntary treatment in court. The person must receive written notice of rights including access to Vermont legal aid and the mental health care ombudsman. Care must be provided in the least restrictive manner possible, and those safeguards are not changed by this bill, to be clear. In Vermont, emergency departments tend to be the front door to psychiatric crisis care. Since 2022, Vermont has recorded more than ten 500 emergency department boarding days for individuals waiting for inpatient mental health care. What that means is that Vermonters in psychiatric crisis have collectively spent over ten thousand days waiting in emergency departments for appropriate care. This is destabilizing for people who who need care. It strains emergency room staff, and it limits access for other emergency care needs. Our committee heard that avoidable delays at the first certification contribute to this problem. So the intent of this bill is to address that. Our current law already allows the Department of Mental Health under current law and the Department of Mental Health Practices, physicians may complete the first certification. APRNs or advanced practice registered nurses can also complete the first certification through a designation and training process that's administered by our Department of Mental Health. There is a process to become eligible and conduct the first certification that requires an application. You have to complete a training, testing, a mock certification, credential verification, and then formal designation by the commissioner of mental health. So this is not a new concept. It's just one that takes training, testing, practice, and formal designation by the commissioner for good reason. What h five seven three changes is it extends eligibility for that first certification to include physician assistance alongside physicians and APRNs who currently can do the first certification. The bill also places the training for completing the emergency evaluation process requirement directly into statute. So after passage, the first certification would then be able to be completed by a physician, an advanced practice registered nurse, or a physician assistant. Each of those has to complete that same department developed training. This bill does not eliminate the twenty four hour psychiatrist second certification. It does not change the definition of a person in need of treatment. It doesn't extend the hold times. It doesn't alter any warrant process. It doesn't remove judicial oversight, reduce the notice of rights and protections, and it doesn't weaken the least restrictive care standards that Vermont has. The psychiatrist's independent review within twenty four hours remains mandatory. And if the psychiatrist does not certify, then the person has to be discharged. This matters because in Vermont hospitals, particularly our smaller and rural more rural facilities, The clinician who performs the emergency evaluation is usually a physician assistant. Under current statute, that clinician may perform the entire assessment, but then they have to wait for a physician or designated APRN to come complete the first certification. So that delay can often be hours. And during that time, there's a person in crisis. Again, this could be you or I, a member of our families, or a member of our community. During that time that they're waiting for someone to certify, hospital resources are being stretched, and the risk of harm to the patient escalates. So this bill aligns statute with the modern composition of our emergency departments in Vermont while also preserving the downstream safeguards. So this is a workflow adjustment. It doesn't expand detention authority. Our committee heard testimony from the director of the Office of Professional Regulation, the director of the Vermont Emergency Nurses Association, an emergency medical physician from Dartmouth Health, representative Donahue, the senior vice president of policy and strategy at Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, the commissioner of the Department of Mental Health, the medical director of the Department of Mental Health, the project director of the Mental Health Law Project at Vermont Legal Aid, legislative counsel from the Office of Legislative Counsel, the emergency services program manager from Northwest Counseling and Support Services in CSS, an emergency medicine physician assistant from Grace Cottage Hospital, the executive director of Disability Rights Vermont. I forgot to walk us through the bill. The bill is printed on page seven forty two of the house calendar from Tuesday, March 10. In section one, the bill removes the certification of mental illness requirement by a physician. This is essentially housekeeping in talking with clinicians. We want this to be completed by a qualified mental health professional. And so this is we are proposing this to be repealed. Section two, again, further housekeeping. It this would clarify that the written application for an emergency examination is actually completed by a qualified mental health professional, not just any interested party. We did some gender cleanup in the language, clarified in section two eighteen VSA under c that the admission of an individual to a designated hospital shall be overseen by the head of a hospital and that they then may designate a person in writing to discharge for discharge authority. So what this is saying is is the basically, that there are two levels of oversight for admission of a person to an inpatient mental health facility. The addition that we added is reads prior to issuing a certificate pursuant to this section, a health care professional shall successfully complete a training developed and administered by the department. What this does is it improves the standard of quality so that PAs, APRNs, and physicians all have to complete a Department of Mental Health design training so we have equity in the way that the first certification application is completed by those professionals. Further, we added language under e, which just simply adds physician assistant to the section of statute. Madam Speaker, h five seventy three reduces avoidable delay in psychiatric emergencies while preserving the safeguards for people in a mental health crisis that we already have in Vermont law. Our committee weighted the workforce realities that emergency rooms are facing alongside civil liberties protections. We voted nine zero two to recommend passage, and we respectfully urge you to vote yes. The

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on health care? Are you ready for the question? Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wanna rise in support of this, bill. It's an important, step in, working through, kinks in the system. But I I wanna underscore just a couple of things about it. We tend in this body when we're dealing with laws and legislative processes and people with a mental illness to see that as kind of the world of people in crisis and reading this would suggest that there anyone who comes to the emergency room in crisis has to go through this double evaluation and all of these protections of their rights as if an admission to a hospital was a violation of rights. This is specifically for people who are refusing admission, who don't believe they need to be admitted. And what's important to realize is that based on the most recent statistics I saw, that represents about five percent of the people who come to an emergency department come involuntarily, don't want to be coming, and only ten percent refuse admission. They may get there and then feel well I wanted help but I don't want to be admitted in the hospital. So this is a very small category but for those people, it is a really important liberty interest at stake. They are saying they don't want medical treatment. We all have the right to inform consent but in this case, the state is intervening both for reasons of altru ism to help provide care but also sometimes for public safety. So, it is an important liberty interest and so I was pleased to see that the committee in allowing an additional professional to make that first sort of first certification also provided added protections. First of all, by eliminating the old language that allowed the application to be made by a large group of people who qualify as an interested party rather than only a qualified mental health professional. And also the addition of placing in statute the existing departmental practice of providing specific training around what the legal criteria are for determining that a person, can be held against their will for admission. So, I appreciate the work of the committee and I urge support of this bill.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on health care? 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 amended the bill. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that 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. Now we'll turn to house bill five seventy eight which is an act relating to penalties and procedures for animal cruelty offenses. The bill was referred to the committee on judiciary which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Burlington, representative Rachelson will speak for the committee and affecting the revenue of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on ways and means which recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary. The member from Thetford, representative Maslen, will speak for the committee and then carrying an appropriation, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations which also recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary. The member from Linden, representative Feltus, will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (Assistant Clerk)]: Page five seventy eight. An act relating to penalties and procedures for animal cruelty offenses.

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

[Representative Barbara Rachelson (Burlington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, the house judiciary brings you this bill because animal cruelty is an ongoing criminal issue in our state. And to address it, we need to acknowledge what is happening. It is disturbing, and it can be horrifying. Our committee report addresses aggravated cruelty to animals, and that includes criminal acts of sexual conduct. Members and anyone else listening should be aware that this floor report will include graphic language that might be disturbing to some. So with that, what problems does h five seventy eight address? Vermont's animal cruelty laws have not been modernized and updated, leaving gaps in coverage. Act one sixty seven of 2024 created a new division of animal welfare in the Department of Public Safety along with the appointment of a director to oversee the division. The director of animal welfare started in May 2025 and was charged with developing a comprehensive plan for the development, implementation, and enforcement of Vermont's animal welfare laws, which was submitted to the legislature in January 2026. Madam speaker, may I read from the director of animal welfare's report?

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

[Representative Barbara Rachelson (Burlington)]: Thank you. While Vermont has a strong foundation of committed animal welfare professionals and volunteers, its current legal and institutional framework has developed in a patchwork fashion over time and does not consistently reflect modern best practices, current community needs, or prevention oriented approach. So some of the gaps in our current law and system include, one, the process of removing or protecting animals is long and can keep animals in danger. Animals once removed often remain in custody for months or even years, making it difficult for private shelters to fill this need as they often don't have the space to accommodate these animals. And, additionally, it's problematic from an animal welfare perspective. Shelter living is not good for animals, and the longer the animal is in a kennel or cage, the more stressful it is for the animal, causing mental and behavioral degradation. The worse the outcomes will be and the harder it will be to successfully rehome them. Next, the nonprofit sector and local communities have had to step in to provide care and services. These cases are large burdens to nonprofits that have already been stretched too thin in terms of time and resources. These organizations have limited funding and capacity and rely upon fundraising to support their work, which is also very limited. Volunteer foster homes and shelters are often small and can only house so many animals. In many cases, they can house up to four dogs, for example. Even with larger shelters, the capacity for intake is limited, and often there is a long wait to get in. Nonprofit shelters absorb at least 20 to $40 a day to provide food, supervision, and basic medical care. It costs an average of approximately $2,500 per animal for pets, and in the case of horses, exceed $50,000. There is no funding source for animal cruelty investigations, associated animal care, and medical costs. Vermont law allows courts to to order alleged abusers to cover the cost of their seized animals' care while a case is pending, but the courts don't often exercise such authority. The cost of care for animals surrendered or seized is almost entirely supported by local humane societies, veterinarians, and national humane organizations. The cost of maintaining animal cruelty investigation programs is borne by Vermont's cities and towns through support of animal control officers by local county and state law enforcement agencies, private and nonprofit humane societies, the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, volunteers, and donors. Currently, animal cruelty offenders are not banned from possessing animals, which means that in certain instances, the animal may return to their abuser or to the same home, and there's nothing prohibiting the offenders from acquiring or working and having access to animals. Current gaps in the law can make certain forms of abuse, such as sexual abuse of animals or the distribution of animal pornography difficult to prosecute effectively. So how does h five seventy eight, propose to make changes? This bill would expand the scope of what is considered animal cruelty. It provides criminal penalties that better address the harms being done to animals in our state. It spells out sentencing options besides the current ones of jail time and fines that include undergoing a psychiatric or psychological evaluation, and if the screening indicates that therapy is needed, obtaining psychiatric, psychological, or mental health treatment with a licensed clinician, completing an approved animal cruelty prevention program, completing an approved animal abuse education accountability program, permitting periodic unannounced visits by a humane officer or the director of animal welfare, prohibiting the defendant from living, working, volunteering with animals. The bill reworks the civil animal forfeiture laws to expedite and streamline the process to better protect at risk animals by putting time frames in place in order to minimize the time an animal might spend in a kennel or cage as well as being in legal limbo. Age five seventy eight provides a stronger mechanism for recouping the cost of animal care while the animal is seized. It requires owners to pay for the cost of care or forfeit their animals. The cost of care paid by the owners will alleviate some of the financial burden shouldered by shelters and volunteers who step in to help the state protect animal abuse. I will now walk you through the bill. You can follow along on page seven eighty nine of today's calendar. So the first few changes occur in section one, the definition section. So in section one c, the bill adds to the definition of sexual conduct by expanding the offense to apply when a person without a bona fide veterinary or animal husbandry purpose either touches or fondles an animal sex organs or transmits semen on any part of an animal. Section d adds, without a bonafide veterinary or animal husbandry purpose, any intentional transfer or transmission of semen by a person upon any part of an animal. The bill adds the definition in parenthesis 25, working with, which means working or volunteering in any capacity, including as an independent contractor that requires the person to be in contact with an animal, including at a commercial boarding or training establishment, shelter, animal control facility, pet shop, grooming facility, commercial breeding service, veterinary hospital or clinic, animal welfare society, or any nonprofit organization incorporated for the purpose of providing for or promoting the welfare, protection, and humane treatment of animals. Moving on to section two, that expands misdemeanor cruelty to include three additional types of conduct. One, knowingly possessing, filming, or distributing obscene visual images of sexual conduct with an animal. Two, possessing, owning, caring for, residing with, having custody of, or working with an animal if the person is prohibited from doing so by a court order, and three, knowingly refusing to comply with a court order to permit periodic unannounced visits by a humane officer. Section three expands felony animal cruelty to include all of the same offenses that constitute misdemeanor sexual conduct with the animal with the additional provision that if the conduct involves a minor, then it is a felony offense. So engages in sexual conduct with an animal in the presence of a minor and or which a minor is a participant. Possesses, sells, transfers, purchases, or otherwise obtains an animal with the intent that it be used for sexual conduct in the presence of a minor or in which a minor is a participant. Organizes, promotes, conducts aids of bats, or participates in an act involving any sexual conduct with an animal in the presence of a minor, or in which a minor is a participant, or as an observer. Causes, aids, abets another person to engage in sexual conduct with an animal in the presence of a minor, or in which the minor is a participant. Permits sexual conduct with an animal in the presence of a minor or in which a minor is a participant that is conducted on premises under the person's charge or control. Advertises, offers, or accepts the offer of an animal with the intent that it be subject to sexual conduct in the state in the presence of a minor or in which the minor participates, or knowingly possesses films or distributes obscene visual images of sexual conduct with an animal in the presence of a minor or or in which a minor participates. Section four. Current law permits the court to order the defendant to forfeit any rights to the animal subjected to cruelty and to any other animal owned, possessed, or in the custody of the defendant. Section four of the bill expands those sanctions and makes several of them mandatory rather than discretionary for the court. So in subdivision a, additionally permits forfeiture of animals residing or domiciled with the defendant. The language preserves the existing exception for livestock or poultry so that a person such as a farmer would not have to forfeit livestock or poultry unless the person was convicted of abusing livestock or poultry. Current law also permits the court to order the defendant to forfeit any future right to own, possess, or care for any animal for a period the court deems appropriate. Subdivision c adds the court's authority to order the defendant to forfeit any future right to reside with, have custody of, or work with an animal. Subdivision c also establishes a five year maximum on the future prohibition for misdemeanor offenses and a ten year maximum for felonies. In subdivisions d and e, there are minor language changes to the provisions permitting the court to, and that is to require the defendant to complete animal cruelty and education prevention and education programs, undergo psychiatric, psychological, or mental health treatment, and permit periodic unannounced visits by a humane officer or the director of animal welfare to inspect animals in the custody of the defendant. Under subdivision, sub two, the forfeiture of the animal that was subject to the cruelty and of future rights to own any other animals is made mandatory rather than discretionary for second or subsequent animal cruelty convictions. Subsection d, currently, animal cruelty offenders are not banned from possessing animals, which means that in certain circumstances, the animal may return to the abuser or to the same home, and there is nothing prohibiting offenders from acquiring or working or having access to animals. If the court does issue an order prohibiting the defendant from owning, possessing, caring for, residing with, having custody of, or working with an animal, subsection d permits the person to later file a petition asking the court to vacate the order and permit the person to have contact with animals again. The court will grant the petition if it finds that the interests of justice are no longer served by prohibiting the defendant from owning, possessing, caring for, residing with, having custody of, or working with animals. Section five expedites and better funds the process that exists in current law to permit forfeiture of an animal subject to cruelty. The process is a civil one, not a criminal one, and it can occur whether the defendant is also charged with a criminal animal cruelty offense or not. Under the current law, a humane officer may obtain a warrant to seize an animal if the officer has probable cause to believe the animal is subject to cruelty. The officer may seize the animal without a warrant if the humane officer witnesses a situation in which the animal's life is in jeopardy and immediate action is necessary to protect the animal's health or safety. A court proceeding may then be initiated for permanent forfeiture of the animal. A current law provides no time limit within which to initiate the proceeding. As a result, there are often delays that result in health health risk for the animal and substantial costs for the organizations providing temporary custody of the animals. Section five establishes shortened timelines to expedite these forfeiture proceedings and requires the animal owner to post security at the time of seizure to pay for the cost of care. The court may waive or reduce this security because of financial hardship for the defendant. Under the new process, when a humane officer seizes an animal, the animal owner has fourteen days from the day of seizure to request a hearing and request that the security be waived. If the owner does not request a hearing or a security waiver, the animal is forfeited fourteen days after the seizure. The humane officer must provide the owner with notice of these rights at the time of seizure. Such notice is constitutionally required because a person's property cannot be taken by the state without due process of law, and due process generally requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. If the owner is present, the officer delivers the notice personally. If the owner is not present, the notice is served by conspicuously posting it in a prominent and accessible place at the location where the animal was seized. Although due process sometimes limits the ability to provide notice by posting, the committee's view is that posting would be permitted under these circumstances when the animal's life is in danger, and the owner would almost certainly see it. If the owner does not if the owner does request a hearing or security waiver within fourteen days after the seizure, then the court must hold a forfeiture hearing within thirty days after the request unless the court extends the period for good cause. The person must post security in the amount needed for food and necessary veterinary care for an initial forty day period with an additional amount for cost of care due for every thirty days thereafter until the owner relinquishes the animal or the court decides the forfeiture issue. The amount of security is established by rules adopted by the director of animal welfare, and it is collected by the court, which then transfers it to the animal welfare fund for distribution to reimburse the custodial care organizations. Subsection f, if the state establishes at the hearing by a preponderance of the evidence that the animal was subjected to cruelty, the court must order the immediate forfeiture of the animal and any offspring of the animal that was born while the animal was in custody. The security posted is applied to the actual costs incurred by the custodial caretaker in carrying and keeping the animal through the date of forfeiture, and any excess must be returned to the person who posted the security. If the security is insufficient to cover the cost of care, the defendant is liable to the custodial caregiver for the difference, and existing law authorizes the restitution unit to collect the funds in subsection f. On the other hand, the court must order the animal returned to the person who petitioned for the hearing if the court finds that the petitioner is not the defendant in a cruelty case involving the animal, did not participate in or consent to the alleged cruel treatment of the animal, did not know that the defendant likely to treat the animal was likely to treat the animal cruelly, and it will and the owner will provide adequate care to the animal if it is returned. If the state does not carry its burden of establishing that the animal was subjected to cruelty, the court must return the animal to the petitioner provided that the person remains liable for the cost of care during the period of of impoundment. Payment of these costs is not required if the court finds there was no reasonable basis for the seizure. If payment of cost is not made within fourteen days of the final order, the custodial caretaker's cost with some limitations shall be reimbursed from the animal welfare fund. Under subsection g, the forfeiture order may be appealed to the supreme court if notice is filed within seven days after the order is issued and the appellant post security. The procedures for posting and reimbursing are the same as at trial. Subsection j authorizes the court to reduce or waive security on the basis of financial hardship, and subsection k provides immunity to humane officers, animal shelters, and rescue organizations for actions taken in good faith reliance on the forfeiture law. Immunity is not provided for gross negligence or intentional misconduct. Section l makes clear that the forfeiture proceeding does not limit any other legal remedies that may exist. Section six requires the division of animal welfare to adopt rules for the receipt, management, and distribution of the security payments, including the amount of security required and the payment schedule. Section seven authorizes the animal welfare fund to accept and hold the security payments and authorizes the director of animal way welfare to make distributions and reimbursements from the fund. Section eight provides that the bill takes effect on passage. We heard from the following witnesses, members of the Vermont Monsters Against Cruelty and Abandonment, the Northeastern Regional Director of Humane World for Animals, state attorneys in Wyndham County, and in Lemoyle County. We heard from, our legislative council, the chair of the Animal Cruelty Investigation Advisory Board, our lead the lead sponsor, the founder and executive director of Mary Mac Farm Sanctuary, the legislative attorney for the Department of State Attorneys and Sheriffs, the director of animal welfare for the Department of Public Safety, the Dorset Equine Rescue, the former police chief in Barrie and South Burlington, chief superior judge of the Vermont judiciary. Madam speaker, Vermont's animal welfare system plays a critical role in protecting animals. And while the abuse and neglect of Vermont animals is reason enough to modernize Vermont's animal welfare system, this issue is also a matter of public health and community safety. Research consistently shows that individuals who abuse animals are significantly more likely to commit violence against humans, including domestic abuse and child neglect and abuse. Stronger laws and more appropriate sentencing options will allow for earlier intervention in these dangerous patterns. The vote in our committee was nine zero two, and we ask for this body's support. Thank you, madam speaker. That concludes my report.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: And now speaking for the committee on ways and means, member from Thetford.

[Representative James Masland (Thetford)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The bill was referred to ways and means for us to determine whether or not there was a fiscal revenue impact on the revenues of the state. And we we heard from the presenter of the bill. We heard from major member of legislative council. And we heard from someone from joint physical office. And after looking high and low, madam speaker, we determined that there's no impact on the revenues of the state. And with that, on a vote of eleven zero zero, we recommended the bill ought to pass. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Linden.

[Representative Martha Feltus (Lyndon)]: Madam speaker, I don't don't think it's proper to say ditto. However, I will say that their House Appropriations Committee reviewed h five seventy six with legislative counsel and with the joint fiscal office. There are no appropriations in five seventy eight and our committee did not offer any amendments to the bill. The House Committee on Appropriations favorably recommends h five seventy eight as amended by house judiciary on a vote of eleven zero zero, and we ask for the body support.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary? 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 amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that 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. Now we'll take up House Bill six eighty six which is an act relating to expanding identification of certain lobbying advertisements. The bill was referred to the committee on government operations and military affairs, which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Cambridge, representative Boyden, will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (Assistant Clerk)]: H six eighty six, an act relating to expanding identification of certain lobbying advertisements.

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

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: Madam speaker, h six eight six relates to expanding the identification of certain lobbying advertisements. Currently, lobbyists are only required to identify their advertisements while the legislature is in session. H six h six proposes to require this at all times to provide greater transparency. I'll briefly walk through the bill, which can be found on page eight zero four of today's house calendar. Section one, subsection nine a strikes orally or in writing. This adjustment captures any communication for the purpose of influencing legislative or administrative action. Similarly, orally is struck in subsection nine d. Section two amends two VSA two six four c. Subsection a one language specific to the legislative session is struck to specify that an advertisement that is intended to influence legislative action or to solicit others to do so that is made at any time shall contain language that is that it was paid for in the name of who made the expenditure for the advertisement. Subsection c one, the definition of advertisement is clarified to mean a notice or communication that appears in any of the following public media, including radio, television, newspapers, and and other periodicals or websites, or is widely disseminated to the public, including mass mass mailings, robotic phone calls, and paid Internet Internet communications. Section three is the effective date of, 07/01/2026. The committee heard testimony from the sponsor of the bill, legislative council, deputy sec secretary of state, secretary of state's office, director elections and campaign finance, secretary of state's office, assistant attorney general and chief of the general counsel and administrative law division, attorney general's office, climate and energy program director, VPIRG, executive director, Vermont Natural Resources Council. The bill passed out a committee on a vote of eleven zero one. Your committee on government operations and military affairs respectfully request your support.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on government operations and military affairs? 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 amended the bill. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that 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, the final bill on our action calendar today is House Bill seven forty four, which is an act relating to procedures for arrest without a warrant. The bill was referred to the committee on judiciary, which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Burlington South Burlington, representative Lalonde will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (Assistant Clerk)]: H seven forty four, an act relating to procedures for arrest without a warrant.

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

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, h seven four four amends rule three of the Vermont rules of criminal procedure. This rule generally involves arrests without a warrant. It lists the types of offenses for which an arrest may be made without a warrant including felonies, misdemeanors that a law enforcement officer witnesses, and some non witnessed misdemeanor offenses. Rule three also outlines procedures for the arresting officer to follow after the arrest. H seven four four amends subsection k in rule three related to temporary release. The language can be found on page eight zero five of today's calendar. The provision requires the law enforcement officer making the arrest to contact the court to determine whether the alleged offender should be released or held. Often this rule comes into play after hours when the court is closed. The arresting officer will contact an on call judge or judicial officer in those situations. The arresting officer must provide the judicial officer with an affidavit or sworn statement including information that allows the judicial officer to determine whether to release or hold the individual. Under the current rule which the legislature passed in 2019, the arresting officer's affidavit or sworn statement must indicate the crimes to be charged by the officer. This language is problematic and has led to the need for this amendment. An officer does not make charging decisions. It is the prosecutor who makes the charging decision. H seven forty four fixes this problem by striking the sentence. In its place, the bill clarifies that the presiding judge for each court may require that prosecuting attorneys indicate the charge or charges that they intend to file. The presiding judge may also require the prosecuting attorney to request any conditions of release, bail, or orders to hold without bail. This additional clarifying provision codifies existing practice. A bit more background is necessary related to this bill. Both the legislature and the courts have authority under the Vermont constitution to amend judicial rules within the confines of separation of powers. The legislature generally cannot amend a court rule that involves an inherently judicial function, but rule three is not such a rule. Indeed, both the legislature and the court have amended rule three multiple times over the years. In fact, it was an amendment to subsection k made by the legislature back in 2019 that h seven forty four is now revising. The judicial branch proposes rules through committees including the advisory committee on criminal rules. That committee has proposed an amendment to subsection k different than the language in eight seven four four. The advisory committee's proposal would have provided that the presiding judge shall require the affidavit or sworn statement to include the charge or charges that the prosecuting attorney intends to file. H seven forty four again provides that the presiding judge may have such a requirement. The court's proposal was mandatory. H seven forty four is discretionary. According to witness testimony, H seven forty four's approach codifies existing practice. H seven forty four addresses and clarifies the issues that the criminal rules committee sought to address in its proposed rule three amendment. In contrast, the advisory committee's proposal would substantially change existing practice and would place a significant and often unnecessary burden on law enforcement and prosecuting attorneys. Accordingly, the judiciary committee has exercised its authority to amend subsection k in h seven forty four, thus clarifying the legislature's previous problematic amendment to that provision. Under h seven forty four, individual presiding judges will continue to determine if and when they need direct input from prosecuting attorneys as opposed to relying solely on law enforcement in determining whether to release or hold an alleged offender. The committee heard from the following witnesses, legislative counsel, the attorney from the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs along with several written testimony from state's attorneys, the deputy state's attorney for Chittenden County State's Attorney's Office, and the judge from the Vermont Superior Court. The committee vote was eleven zero, and we ask you for your support.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary? Are you ready for the question?

[Unidentified Member from Winooski (Health Care Committee)]: If

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: 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. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that 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? Are there any announcements? Seeing none. Member from POLNI, can you please offer us a motion to adjourn until Thursday, March 12 at 03:30PM?

[Representative John L. Bartholomew (Hartland/West Windsor)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion this body stand in adjournment until Thursday, 03/12/2026 at 03:30PM.

[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

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: ayes