Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. In lieu of a devotional today, will you please join me in a moment of silence? Members, we have a proposal to amend the Vermont constitution for referral today. PR four is a proposed amendment to the constitution of the state of Vermont regarding equality of rights. Please listen to the reading of the resolution by title only.

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Proposal four. Proposed amendment to the constitution of the state of Vermont regarding the equality of rights.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Now the proposal has been read and is referred to the committee on judiciary pursuant to house rule 51 a. Members we have three house bills for introduction today. The first is house bill nine twenty seven which is an act relating to technical corrections for the twenty twenty six legislative session. Introduced by the committee on government operations and military affairs. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: H nine two seven, an act relating to technical corrections for the 2026 legislative session.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Now the bill has been read the first time and as a committee bill is placed on the calendar for notice on the next legislative day pursuant to house rule 52. Next is house bill nine twenty eight, which is an act regarding to technical corrections to fish and wildlife statutes introduced by the committee on environment. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: H nine two eight, an act relating to technical corrections to fish and wildlife statutes.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Now the bills we read the first time and as a committee bill is referred to the committee on ways and means pursuant to house rule 35 a. And finally, house bill nine twenty nine is an act relating to the form of school budgets introduced by representative Arsenault of Williston and others. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: H nine two nine, an act relating to the form of school budgets.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Now the bill has been read the first time and is referred to the committee on education. Members, we also have one senate bill for referral this afternoon. Senate bill two forty three is an act relating to distributing funds to the Vermont language justice project Introduced by senator Gulick. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: S two forty three, an act relating to distributing funds to the Vermont Language Justice Project.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Now the bill has been read the first time and is referred to the committee on human services. Members earlier today, multiple committees voted out bills that require referral to a money committee pursuant to house rule 35A pending their entry on the notice calendar. The committee on corrections and institutions reported favorable with amendment on house bill two ninety four which is an act relating to commissionary and telecommunication prices and state correctional facilities and fair compensation for incarcerated labor affecting the revenue of the state. The bills referred to the committee on ways and means. The committee on human services reported favorable with amendment on house bill six fifty seven which is an act relating to enabling unaccompanied homeless youth to obtain certain services without parental consent affecting the revenue of the state. Bill is referred to the committee on ways and means. The committee on energy and digital infrastructure reported favorable with amendment on house bill seven eighteen, which is an act relating to building energy efficiency. Carrying an appropriation, the bill is referred to the committee on appropriations. And finally, the committee on ways and means reported favorable with amendment on house bill seven seventy five which is an act relating to creating tools for housing production. Carrying an appropriation, the bill is referred to the committee on appropriations. Now members, we have one more item to take up at this time. The member from Barrytown, representative McFawn has submitted a letter of resignation. Will the clerk please read the letter from the member from Barrytown?

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Dear speaker, is with deep regret that I inform you that because of family responsibilities, I feel it is necessary for me to resign from my position as a representative in the Vermont House. My resignation is effective 04/03/2026. It has been a great honor to serve my constituents and the people of Vermont for so many years. Being a representative has been one of my most important and rewarding positions I've ever held. I will miss being here with all the friends I have made over the years working together to help make the lives of Vermonters better. Sincerely, Francis Topper McVaughn.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Remember, we will have time to honor you later, but thank you for your service. We appreciate you. Are there any announcements? Member from Whitingham.

[Representative Emily Carris Duncan (Whitingham)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I would like the body to welcome my intern, Michelle Martell, who is from Whitingham. Michelle is a big animal lover, a lifelong Vermonter, and a very has a very keen interest in the legislative process. So if you could all welcome Michelle. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guest member from Whitingham please rise and be recognized? Are there any further announcements? Member from Cambridge. Wait, Apologies.

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Madam speaker,

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: the education reform meeting that was originally scheduled for this afternoon has been rescheduled to next Thursday, 04:30 to six. It will be an hour meeting but the room has been reserved for an hour and a half depending on the floor schedule. The meeting will be held in Room 11. All are welcome. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any further announcements? Member from Newfang.

[Representative Emily Long (Newfane)]: Madam speaker, please join me in welcoming six important guests visiting here today. These visitors are six young people who have been named distinguished citizens. These students completed all 25 activities in last summer's Good Citizen Challenge, which is organized by seven days with support from the Vermont Community Foundation and with the help from the Secretary of Vermont Secretary of State's office. Between May 2025, they read books, picked up trash in public places, and visited historic sites as well as fire and rescue squads. They read local news and raised money for Vermont nonprofits. Their work has earned them the title of distinguished citizens. They're here at the State House during Civic Learning Week to see state government in action. These six distinguished guests and citizens are John J. Zampieri II, South Ryegate, age seven. Susanna Rye from Waterbury, age 11. Ollie Grant from Burlington, age seven. Ivy Skull from Putney, age nine. Loretta Boatwright from New Haven, age nine. And my constituent, Ela Brown from Newfane, age nine. Please join me in giving them a warm welcome to the People's House. They're seated in the gallery.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Please rise and be recognized. Member from Hartford.

[Representative Esme Cole (Hartford)]: Madam speaker, I'm excited to introduce a dear friend and constituent to the chamber today. James Coleman works for the Green Mountain Economic Development Corporation and oversees the Upper Valley Welcome Wagon, a program dedicated to welcoming and retaining new Vermonters in our state through fantastic social programming, community building, by helping people move in, and much more. Just as Jimmy makes new Vermonters feel welcome, I hope you'll help me welcome him to the people's house for the first time.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guest member from Hartford please rise and be recognized? Are there any further announcements? Seeing none.

[House Reading Clerk]: Orders of the day.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members, we will begin with house bill five twelve, which is an act relating to the regulation of the event ticketing market. Prior to third reading, the member from Northfield representative Donahue offers an amendment to the bill that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. As was just referenced, this amendment can be found on page eight fourteen of today's calendar. Madam speaker, before beginning, I would like to divide the question between the first and the second proposal of amendment with the first portion to be first.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The amendment is divisible. You may go ahead.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, I wanna begin with a bit of a spoiler alert. This amendment, this part of of the amendment that we're discussing first was rejected by the Committee of Jurisdiction unanimously. But I'm bringing it forward because I think there's a very fundamental principle that we should be considering. The amendment addresses, the definition of the term reseller, within this bill on the regulation of the event ticketing market. And what it does is it exempts individuals who are reselling a ticket that they bought for personal use for a single event. In other words, individual Vermonters not involved in business to buy and sell tickets by exploiting the system. Why would we include them in a bill that's focused on protecting consumers and venues against abuses? I'll give just a very brief example because it happened to come up this past weekend on our local front porch forum. Person who wrote a message in saying, I know this is a long shot, but I'm wondering if anybody has four tickets that they're not gonna use for the Norwich Hockey Game. My buddies and I, as a group, were planning to go to this game, didn't get our tickets in time. There's only single seats left rather than four together. And so I I would love to try to to get some. And if he had added in that message, and this is a really big deal to us. We've been planning it, and I'd be more than happy to pay one and a half times the price of the ticket. It would be an illegal under this law for that transaction to take place. If a bill had been introduced to this body suggesting that these kind of sales, like the one I just described, by individuals who bought a ticket for themselves and can't use it and wants to sell it, that they should be regulated by the state. I think we all know that bill would not even have been taken up, let alone voted out of the committee. I've heard that the attorney general's office is not gonna prosecute individuals in that situation, But that's not the point. It would be making these illegal. There are actually some people who believe in following the law. The fact that, oh, it's not gonna be prosecuted isn't gonna give them comfort, and they'll follow the law even if they feel it's unfair. You may also hear that it's much harder for the attorney general's office to investigate if they have to parse out between different types of sellers and our our whole electronic marketplace these days? Well, I'd say first of all in prosecuting any illegal activities, that's the job of investigators to parse out among those who should be pursued. But if it's a challenge to discern among those, they're still gonna have to discern among those if they're not gonna prosecute this small subgroup. So what is the fundamental principle at stake? It's the question of when government, what is something that's significant enough for public protection to invade the personal rights of Vermonters. In this case, the right to buy and sell and engage in an open market without making any kind of significant harms to a larger body of people or principle, and I would suggest this is not significant enough to intrude on our individual citizens. Many people we know already feel that government sticks its nose into their personal business more and more and goes too far in doing that. So let's not do it unnecessarily. This is a good bill. It's an important bill. Let's not allow it to be a vehicle for unnecessary government intervention into the individual lives of Vermonters. So, madam speaker, I would ask the body's support for this amendment.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now for the committee, member from Whitingham.

[Representative Emily Carris Duncan (Whitingham)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The committee on commerce and economic development considered the amendment offered by the member from Northfield, which we found which can be found in today's calendar on page eight fourteen, if you're not there already. The committee thanks the member for their work on this. In the strike all amendment that was offered by the committee on commerce and economic development on February 27, the reseller was defined as a person engaged in the resale of tickets. The amendment offered today changes the definition by stating that a reseller means a person engaged in the resale of tickets except that reseller does not include an individual reselling a ticket purchased for personal use for a single event. This proposed definition would remove the 10% price cap for individuals purchasing a ticket for personal use at a single event. The committee heard testimony from the assistant attorney general that this change would pose a challenge in determining if a ticket was used was used for personal use at a sing at a single event causing confusion for venues, customers, and secondary ticket sellers alike. The underlying definition applies equally to all persons defined by Vermont law. To make this change would be an uneven application of the law, and the office of the attorney general is not interested in neighbor to neighbor transactions rather than rather they're interested in bigger players that are disrupting the tech secondary ticket market. They don't have the resources to to enforce a change of this nature. The committee heard from the sponsor of the amendment, the office of legislative council, the executive director of Vermont's Arts Council, and the assistant attorney general. The motion was to find the amendment favorable. The amendment failed on a straw poll of zero eleven zero, and we ask the body to vote no on this amendment.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Northfield in the first instance of amendment? Are you ready for the question? Member from Coventry.

[Representative Michael Marcotte (Coventry)]: Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: We

[Representative Michael Marcotte (Coventry)]: appreciate member from Northfield bringing this amendment to us. We had a lot of discussion with her, also with other parties. We take it seriously. What I would say is that we are not stopping anyone from reselling their ticket. And all resellers are individuals. This could also cause confusion in the reseller market. We also worry about discrimination. Are we discriminating by exempting a small amount of people from the law that we're proposing? There was also discussions about moving people to the fraudsters, to the other markets that may be available to them, like Front Porch Forum, Facebook Marketplace, and others, that we could be pushing those fraudsters away from the secondary ticket market that we're trying to regulate and force them into providing get trying to grab their gains and fraud Vermonters on these other platforms. So I would ask the body to recognize that your committee on commerce and economic development has taken extensive testimony over quite a few weeks to come to the place where we're at now with h five twelve. And that, again, reiterating the vote of the committee was the motion was made to find this favorable, and the vote was zero in favor, 11 against. And I would ask you to support the committee on this. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Northfield in the first instance of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The nays appear to have it. The nays do have it and you have declined to amend the bill in the first instance of amendment. Now member from Northview.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The second part of this amendment dealt with an issue that there was some debate on when this bill was before us for second reading regarding resellers who are being exempted because of a written contract. So they were being carved out from being considered resellers as a subgroup and there was some discussion and concern about why that group would be carved out. Madam speaker, I would like to yield to the member from Ferrisburg to discuss this amendment.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member formed from Northfield yields to the member from Ferrisburg.

[Representative Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Thank thank you, madam speaker, and thank you representative from Northfield for allowing me to speak on this. The representative from Northfield and I work work together on on this amendment after its original reading last Friday. And one of the things that that I wanted to do is first of all, notify madam speaker that while the member from Northfield had a zero to 11 uphill battle to to compete against this particular aspect of the second portion of this amendment was nearly exactly divided in committee at five to six. So stands a little bit better chance, I believe. But I think there are some misunderstandings that I would like to try to clear up for you here and for the body. Watched the committee discussions and the excellent testimony that occurred on this amendment. And I think the majority of that testimony, and in fact, nearly all of it really spoken in support of the amendment that we're about to review here. That is the second portion. And if I can just remind the madam speaker, the purpose of this bill is to protect Vermonters from being scammed and being price gouged by resellers artificially and significantly inflating the price of tickets, and ensuring that Vermont's venues and performers get to share properly and fairly in the proceeds that those those tickets are are earning. And so I would like to go back and I know it's it's been since last Friday since we read this, but if I could just go back, the the section that applies that this amendment is applying to is section c of the original bill, which was titled price cap on the resale of event tickets. Item one, which is not changing, says a ticket reseller cannot sell or offer for sale a ticket at a price greater than a 110% of the price of an original ticket. And item two said, a secondary ticket exchange shall not authorize for resale on the exchange a ticket for a price greater than a 110% of the price of Virgin ticket. So those two subsections of section c under the price cap clearly established the 110% price cap for resale of tickets. And it's just the third and last subsection under this section C that is being proposed to be changed. And you'll find that on page 114, eight fourteen of today's calendar jar at right in the middle of the page where it says subsection three under second. And what I would like to do, madam speaker, if you take your pen, because not all of this is new or changed, only a very limited amount of this subsection three is being changed in in the proposed amendment. And so if you just underline the word under that appears at the end of the the first sentence there, ticket under, that word changed. And then at the very end of the new subsection three there, starting at the word if, if the written contract is executed prior to 07/01/2026, that's new. The rest of the text is identical to what appeared in the original bill. So let me just see if I can describe what those two changes are trying to accomplish. So the word under replaced the small phrase that was in the original bill of if the seller has. So it used to read the resale of a ticket if the seller has a written contract with a ticket seller. The whole purpose of that change is to remove the word seller. So it was consistent with the rest of the language in subsection c to be clear that this is all about resale, not original sale. So not seller, but resale. So it's just changed with the word under to eliminate the entire concept of a seller being in in the verbiage there. Resale of a ticket under a written contract with a ticket issuer. The last part, which is newly added, that was not in the original bill, is if the written contract is executed prior to 07/01/2026. The whole purpose of that is to simply apply an expiration date on this otherwise what is really a loophole to the cap, 110% cap on the resale of tickets. So all this is doing is is applying an expiration date to that loophole. And the the purpose of this, therefore, is so that this loophole, disappears after 07/01/2026. So that everyone, all personal individuals who are persons who are involved in resales of tickets are doing it at the capped 110% level. The key phrase in number three are the very first several words, which says this subsection shall not apply. So this is clearly an exemption from the 110% cap. So so I I believe the the original text confused original sale and resell of tickets. And secondly, it allowed the secondary market reseller to monopolistically buy up many or all of the original tickets that are under under an exclusive written contract only then to turn around and sell them at a significantly higher price, not having to follow the 110% cap like everybody else does and charging therefore Vermonters much higher prices for the tickets and not sharing those extra profits with the venue or the performer. And I think so that loophole is really what we want to expire at the July 2026. And the reason why we wanted to have it, I think this is good to have an expiration date because there may already be existing contracts in place, and we would like for those to be able to be completed. So applying an expiration date just means that then going forward, no new contracts allowing this loophole to exist will will be implemented. So this second amendment here does not prevent a venue or a performer from contracting with a ticket seller on a wide that has wide market access to sell their original sale tickets for whatever price or fee arrangement that they want. Nor does it prevent contracting with a reseller that's willing to limit the resale price to a 110%. Just like everyone else. The whole purpose of this amendment is strictly to address the resale abuse that has been occurring which is the purpose of the bill in the first place. And so this amendment just simply clarifies that language to ensure that it meets the bill itself, meet its original intent. And without this amendment, the second amendment here that we're talking about now, I I believe that this that the contracted resellers could still price gouge and scam Vermonters for extreme ticket prices by exercising this this item three loophole. So, with this amendment though, the the bill protects Vermonters and from being price gouged, from being scammed by resellers, and it ensures that Vermont venues and performers share properly and fairly in the proceeds that their tickets are earning. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Whatingham.

[Representative Emily Carris Duncan (Whitingham)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The second instance of amendment makes changes to section one, Substitution c three. This it this exempts the secondary ticket sellers that from the 10% price cap if if the venue is in contract with a tech secondary ticket sell reseller. And that contract was made before 07/01/2026. Contracts made after that date would be subject to the 10% cap. The committee heard testimony from the Vermont Arts Council about Vermont venues that have long term contracts with ticket resellers. Some of these some of these contracts set prices around 10 at or around 10% for the resale of tickets. Others offer profit sharing for the venue. These contracts provide the opportunity for venues to control costs created by an uncertain uncertainty and an unregulated secondary ticket market. The goal of this bill is to bring stability to Vermont to Vermonters and the venues we enjoy. The 10% price cap levels the playing field in the broader marketplace have saving venues and fans time and money. The committee feels that if the a venue knows that a reseller is charging a higher price for for resale and they have agreed to that and signed in a signed written contract, it is not our role to interfere with how they do their business. This the motion was defined this amendment favorable. The the motion failed on a straw poll of five six zero, and we ask the body to vote no on this amendment. We heard from the the the same folks that we had heard from before on the first

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Northfield in the second instance of amendment member from Burlington?

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I wanna thank the member from Northfield for the effort and thought behind her amendment and the member from for Jen's for his presentation. Your committee on commerce and economic development has taken extensive testimony on this bill starting last spring. We learned that there are legitimate reasons that a venue may decide to enter into an agreement with the reseller to provide a way to for customers to easily sell the tickets they cannot use. This is not a loophole. It is an opportunity to allow venues to be free to negotiate an agreement with the ticket reseller that is in the best interest of their business model and their customers. And that agreement may include scenarios in which the ticket is resold for more than a 110% of the ticket price. I'm gonna just describe one plausible scenario. The contract with the ticket reseller allows the ticket reseller to set or sets it up so the ticket reseller sells the ticket at the face value plus an additional $3 surcharge to every ticket regardless of the price of the ticket. So if the original ticket price was $10, they would sell it for $10 plus $10, which would go back to the original ticket holder, plus a $3 a $3 surcharge to pay for credit card expenses, to pay for the business expenses. So that's 30%, a 30% markup. But if it was a $100 ticket, that would be a 3% markup. That is just one of the scenarios of a business model that this could make sense for. And I wanna remind you that we're we're talking about a venue having a negotiated contract with a reseller. So they are making the decision that is in the best interest of their business model and the best interest of their customers. So I would ask the body to to to join me in voting no on this second half of the amendment. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Northfield in the second instance of amendment? Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Just in listening in the past few minutes, it just does strike me as of interest that we can exempt to allow big business players to make contracts and it's not our role to interfere in that. Yet we it would create an inequity if we carved out a group of Vermonters who are trying to resell a personally bought ticket to their neighbor down the street.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Northfield in the second instance of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Nay. The nays appear to have it. The nays do have it, and you have declined to amend the bill in the second instance of amendment. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Assistant Clerk]: H five twelve, an act relating to the regulation of the events ticketing market.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Member from Whitingham.

[Representative Emily Carris Duncan (Whitingham)]: On this portion of the bill, we your committee on commerce and economic development encourages you to vote yes.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If member from Jericho.

[Representative Edye Graning (Jericho)]: Thank you, madam speaker. In committee, we heard so much from the creative economy about how reselling tickets is destroying their market and ruining their, the customer's ability to trust in the venues and in the artists. And this bill will do a lot to support them, to support Vermont venues, to support Vermont artists, and to bring people back together enjoying all of the art and and opportunity we have to celebrate together. So thank you for supporting this bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: 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. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. Yes. Do have it, and you have passed the bill. Next up is house bill five seventy three, which is an act relating to the first certification of an emergency examination. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

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

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: 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 five seventy eight, which is an act relating to penalties and procedures for animal cruelty offenses. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

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

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Burlington.

[Representative Barbara Rachelson (Burlington)]: Madam Speaker, I'd like to make a correction to my report from yesterday. I mistakenly said that the effective date of the bill is on passage, but the correct effective date is 07/01/2026. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so No. 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 eighty six, which is an act relating to expanding identification of certain lobbying advertisements. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

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

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: 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 seven forty four, which is an act relating to procedures for arrest without a warrant. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

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

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: 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. And now we'll turn to you house bill seven fifty three which is an act relating to utility service disconnections and rate payer protections. The bill is referred to the committee on energy and digital infrastructure which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. Member from Moortown, representative Torrey will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Assistant Clerk]: H seven fifty three, an act relating to utility service disconnections and ratepayer protections.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Northtown more Moortown.

[Representative Dara Torre (Moretown)]: Madam speaker, h seven five three would update the rules that govern how and when disconnections or shutoffs of residential electric and gas utility service may occur in our state. It would also give legislators more insight into disconnection trends by requiring new annual reporting to the legislature. Nationally and in Vermont, there's been a spike in utility service disconnections since protections preventing disconnections during the COVID pandemic came to an end in 2022. To track disconnection trends, the Public Utilities Commission or PUC requires monthly reporting by utilities. The Public Service Department serves as an advocate for ratepayers and has a consumer assistance department that helps customers who have received a disconnection notice follow-up on a dispute or access resources. An extensive network of nonprofit partners also provide information or direct payment support, including two one one, community action agencies, parent child centers, and faith communities. Reducing energy costs for families by weatherizing homes and installing more efficient appliances and keeping electric rates as low as possible are the upstream policy actions that help keep the lights and heats heat on for the financially vulnerable. The availability of flexible utility bill payment options is also important. While our largest electric utility and our one gas utility offer income qualified bill payment assistance to help avoid disconnections, our smaller cooperative and municipal electric utilities have no formal assistance programs. We took testimony from utilities of all sizes and heard how hard they work with customers who are struggling with their bills. Even with bill payment assistance and arrearage forgiveness, however, families may still get behind and face tough choices that can lead to disconnection. Having detailed and modernized rules in place to keep the lights on and ensure access to heating and cooling during weather extremes falls to our PUC. Rule three three hundred currently includes processes that all 17 of our electric utilities and our one gas utility must follow before any disconnection of service to a home for nonpayment proceeds, especially during winter months. Our Public Service Department alerts electric utilities about high heat hazard days during which disconnection should not occur. And we heard testimony that utilities are responsive to these requests, but rule three three hundred does not currently include heat high heat protections. H seven five three would update the rule so that both high heat and cold weather protections are in place and also prompt some updates to medical exemptions. I will now describe the the sections of this short bill, which starts on page eight one five of today's calendar. Section one is the short title, Vermont Energy Equity Law. Section two requires that the Public Service Department provide data on disconnection trends annually to the legislature using data from monthly utility reports provided to the PUC on involuntary residential disconnections as well as consumer assistance records collected by the department's consumer affairs and public information division. Section three requires the initiation of a rulemaking by the PUC on rule three three hundred by 01/01/2028 and directs the inclusion of rules that prevent electric utility disconnections during periods of extreme heat as defined by the commission and which may include a lower temperature threshold for households with persons aged 62 years or older. This would mirror the protections currently in place for older adults in extreme cold. It also clarifies that in addition to a physician, a licensed physician assistant or nurse practitioner may also issue a physician certificate. Current rules give a reprieve from disconnection with a valid physician's certificate for medical reasons. Finally, it requires due consideration of medical judgment regarding the duration of a health hazard indicated in a physician's certificate when establishing the disconnection protection period for a health hazard. Currently, such certificates are only valid for up to thirty days, are limited to two consecutive thirty day periods, and must not exceed three thirty day periods in any calendar year without written PUC approval. Section four is the effective date, and it's 07/01/2026. The committee heard testimony from the director of the Vermont Parent Child Center Network, a board member at Vermont Interfaith Power and Light, manager at Vermont Electric Cooperative, an attorney, a member of the Vermont Environmental Justice Network Steering Committee, the legislative liaison of the Public Utility Commission, director of consumer affairs and public information at the Department of Public Service, general manager of Morrisville Water and Light, senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, the director of the regulatory and government affairs at Green Mountain Power, the general manager at Washington Electric Co op, to co director of organizing and communications at three fifty Vermont, a board member at Disability Rights Vermont, the director of public affairs at Vermont Gas Systems, legislative council, office of legislative council. The bill passed out of the committee on a vote of nine zero zero. Your committee on energy and digital infrastructure respectfully request your support of the bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure? 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 eight forty nine which is an act relating to a civil action for damages for interference with, with state or federal constitutional rights by any government official. The bill is referred to the committee on judiciary which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from South Burlington, representative Villalomew will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Assistant Clerk]: H eight forty nine, an act relating to a civil action for damages or interference with state or federal constitutional rights by any government official.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from South Burlington.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, h eight four nine found on page eight sixteen of today's calendar will enable Vermonters to defend their constitutional rights. The bill creates a legal claim for damages against the state, local, or federal official who violates the US constitution. This bill sets forth who can sue for a constitutional violation. It describes who can be sued and what behavior they can be sued for, and it specifies what the person suing can obtain from the court for relief. I'll explain each of these as it relates to the bill. So who can sue under h eight four nine? Any resident of the state of Vermont or other person with the jurisdiction within the jurisdiction of Vermont can sue to allege a constitutional violation. Who can be sued and for what? Any person who acts under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage can be sued under h eight forty nine if they subject or cause to be subjected any person in Vermont to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by The US constitution. Under under color means that a person is acting capacity. In other words, a person acting in an official capacity under any law can be sued under this bill if they deprive someone in Vermont of any of their federal constitutional rights or if they cause someone in Vermont to be deprived of those rights. And what are some examples of such deprivations of rights? So claims could be brought for violations of the fourth amendment related to unreasonable searches and seizures. Such claims could cover police brutality, excessive force during arrest, false arrest, and unlawful searches of homes or property. Claims may also arise under the first amendment if government officials attempt to suppress the right to free speech or the right to peaceably assemble. Claims could arise under the fourteenth amendment for violations of due process or equal protection. These violations could involve deprivation of life, liberty, or property without proper legal procedures. And what kind of relief can a court give someone suing under this law? Individuals can obtain monetary damages or injunctive relief. Injunctive relief could be an order to to cease causing a deprivation of rights. The cause of action created by h eight four nine is modeled after a federal statute 42 USC section nineteen eighty three. That federal law creates a cause of action for damages against state and local officials who violate The US constitution. The US Supreme Court has created other causes of action for damages against certain federal officials who violate certain constitutional rights, but these are very limited. The impetus for h eight four nine is closing the gap in available constitutional remedies. While the federal law 42 USC section nineteen eighty three provides a federal right of action for those injured by constitutional violations committed by state and local officials, the statute does not apply to comparable violations by federal officials. H eight forty nine closes that gap in Vermont. Now I'll walk you through the language of the bill. Subsection a, which I've already described largely, creates a private right of action for violations of The US constitution by individuals acting under color of law. Subsection b defines color of law. Subsection c clarifies that any defense available under the federal law 42 USC section nineteen eighty three shall be available in actions brought under this section. It further provides that existing qualified or absolute immunity defenses are available under this section. Subsection d provides that when courts apply the section, they shall be guided by how federal courts have construed 42 USC section nineteen eighty three. Those subsections c and d are intended to clarify the fact that h eight four nine is modeled after the federal statute in court in court should follow the federal jurisprudence related to that law. Section two of the bill provides that the act shall take effect on 07/01/2026. So one question you may be asking yourself, madam speaker, can we do this? It is admittedly an unsettled question as to whether the law as it relates to federal officials would be found to be, would be found to be constitutional. The federal government may challenge h eight four nine as inconsistent with the supremacy of federal law. It could make potential arguments against the law based on so called supremacy clause preemption and on intergovernmental immunity. The judiciary committee heard from experts in the field and also strong written testimony that we have strong counterarguments in favor of upholding the law. In addition, h eight four nine reduces the litigation risk by closely tracking the language in 42 USC section nineteen eighty three. Ultimately, however, a court will likely have to decide whether to uphold this law. Your judiciary committee heard from the following witnesses, legislative council, the office of legislative council, the senior policy council for the ACLU, the advocacy director of the ACLU of Vermont, the general council of the department of public safety, a professor from the Pritzker School of Law of Northwestern University, director of the civil rights unit at the office of the attorney general, and the chief superior judge of the Vermont judiciary. H 89 allows Vermonters to vindicate their constitutional rights against all government agents acting in their official capacity. Compensating the victim of constitutional wrongs can help provide justice and accountability. Holding officials accountable will give them the incentive to respect Vermont Vermonters constitutional rights. The voting committee was six five. If a right does not have a remedy, it is not much of a right at all, and we ask for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary, member from Essex Junction?

[House Reading Clerk]: Madam speaker, Vermonters expect the constitutional rights are more than words on paper. H eight forty nine makes sure there is a clear path in our state courts when those rights are violated by government officials. This bill strengthens accountability and public trust and for that reason when the vote is taken I request it be taken by roll.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Essex Junction requests that when the vote is taken be taken by roll. If the member is sustained. The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary? Are you ready for the question? Member from Pulton East.

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, my understanding is h eight four nine comes to the floor with a six five vote without sufficient testimony in committee. For a bill to have such far reaching implications with respect to who will be affected without a deep dive into the issues surrounding the constitutionality of this bill is something I cannot support. If this bill passes, state workers, postal workers, federal workers, any and all government officials will be subject to this legislation. Madam speaker, may I quote from testimony given?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Thank you. Quoting from assistant attorney general Julio Thompson, who's also the codirector of the civil rights divisions unit at the attorney general's office, quote, this is a new right to sue any of the 3,000,000 or more federal employees that did not exist before and to allow a type of constitutional litigation to occur that to my knowledge has not occurred in US history, end quote. I will vote no on age 49, not because I oppose accountability for government officials. I support it. I will vote no because there needs to be a much deeper dive into the constitutionality of this bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary member from Burlington?

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, could I ask the member who presented the bill to brush over the federal qualified immunity and interaction that the state court would have?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from South Burlington is interrogated.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: I'm not so I think the question was what does this do regarding qualified immunity? So it explicitly provides that officers have the same defenses they have in section in federal section section nineteen eighty three cases. In those cases, officials are immune from liability unless a reasonable person would know that they acted outside of clearly established constitutional rights or and limits. I should say limits. So the the idea is that the language relating to qualified immunity in the bill is designed to limit qualified immunity defenses to actions brought under this bill. Only the qualified immunity that section nineteen ninety three applies would only apply to defenses and actions brought under h eight four nine. That doesn't mean that other qualified immunity defenses and other types of statutes and other types of cases in Vermont are going away. They're just not being changed in any manner by h eight forty nine. We decided to have that in the bill because the many pages of written testimony that discussed this bill discussed this kind of bill, suggested that, we would be more, at risk in litigation, if we did not include the defenses that are included under section nineteen eighty three, and that's why we decided proceed with, this defense, and others qualified immunity and others, to be part of the bill. Thank

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

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

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: If

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Arsenault of Williston. Two

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: 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 bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Austin of Colchester. Bailey of Hyde Park. Bartholomew of Heartland. Yes. Bartley of Fairfax. Yes. Rebecca Bunusky. Yes. By wrong over gents. Yes. Bishop of Colchester.

[Representative Michael Marcotte (Coventry)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Black of Essex? Yes. Bloomley of Burlington?

[Representative Esme Cole (Hartford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Bosch of Clarendon? No. Buton Berry City? Boyden of Cambridge. Brady of Williston. Branagan of Georgia. Yes. Branham of St. Albantown. Brown of Richmond. Burditt, a West Rutland? No. Burkhardt, Brattleboro? Burkhardt of South Burlington? Yes. Burrows, West Windsor? Yes. Burditt Cabot? Campbell, St. Johnsbury. Yes. Canfield, Fairhaven. No. Carris Duncan, Alightingham. Yes. Casey Montpelier. Yes. Casey Hubbarton. No. Chief in

[Representative Angela Arsenault (Williston)]: East

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Montpelier. Charlton Chester? Yes. Christie of Hartford? Gina Galfetti? Yes. Coffin and Cavendish? No. Cole of Hartford? Yes. Conlon and Cornwall?

[House Assistant Clerk]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Cooper Conor? Yes. Corcoran of Bennington? Yes. Critchlow of Colchester? Yes. Demar of Venusburg? No. Dickinson of Saint Albans Town? No. Dover, Richard, Williamstown? Dodge of Essex? Yes. Dolan of Essex Junction? Yes. Dolgin of St. Johnsbury? Yes. Donahue Northfield? Yes. Duke of Burlington? Durfee of Shesbury?

[Representative Michael Marcotte (Coventry)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Eastes of Guildford?

[Representative Michael Marcotte (Coventry)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Emmons of Springfield?

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

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Feltus of Linden? Yes. Galfetti of Barrytown? Yes. Garrison Of Essex. Yes. Goldman at Rockingham.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Goodnight, Brad Burrow. Yes. Ghostman at Northfield. No. Granting at Jericho. Yes. Greer Bennington. Aguirre Fairfield? No. Hengal Brickshear? No. Harbett Glover? Yes. Harvey at Castleton? No. Hendrick Burlington? Yes. Higley of Low? No. Holcomb or Norwich? Yes. Cooper Randolph? Yes. Cooper Burlington? No. Potomac Junction? Yes. Howard of Rutland City? Yes. Holland of Rutland Town? Point Of Hartford? Yes. Hunter Manchester? Yes. James in Manchester? No. Kasenska, Burke? Kasenska, Burke? Keyser, Rutland City. No. Kimball Woodstock. Yes. Cutler, Burlington. Corcoranizer, Brattleboro. Yeah. Cresnel, South Burlington. Yeah. Leber, Morgan. Lallie Schauburn. Yes. Lalo of South Burlington.

[Representative Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Lamonta Morristown. Yes. The Russia Franklin. No. Lipsky Stowe. Logan of Burlington.

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Long and Uffin.

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

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Leaders of Lincoln. Yes. Luna of St. Albans City. Yes. Maguire of Rutland City. Malay Pittsford. No. Mark out of Coventry. No. Maslana Petford. Yes. McKenna Montpelier. Yes. McCoy Pultney. No. McFauna, Barry Town? Yes. McGillard Bridport? Yes. Miclissa Milton? Yes. Mollie of Callis? Yes. Meniere of South Burlington? Yes. Morgan L. Of Milton? Yes. Morgan M. Of Milton?

[Representative Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Morris of Springfield?

[Representative Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Morris of Bennington? Mora of Weston? Yes. Roeke and Putney? Yes. Nelson of Derby. No. Nielsen of Brandon. No. Nigro, Bennington. Yes. North of Ferrisburg. Owens of Volkitt.

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

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: Newton of South Burlington. Yes. O'Brien of Tunbridge. O'Dee Burlington. Yes. Oliver of Sheldon. Oliver. Olson of Starksboro. Page of Newport City? Parsons Newberry? Prezzo of Colchester? Yes. Pinson Aldo Dorset? No. Patra Hindsburg? Yes. Powers of Waterford? Gregoire Fairfield, Klepner Burlington, Lipschia Stow, O'Brien at Tonbridge, Paige in Newport City. Parsons in Newbury. Rachel's in Burlington. Zach Witza Randolph. Steady Milton. Stone of Burlington?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: For per member for purpose of explanation, member

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: No. Can I change my vote? I'm a speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Barrytown.

[House Clerk (Reading/ Roll-Call Clerk)]: No. Galfetti, Barrytown.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member for a purpose of explanation, member from South Burlington.

[Representative Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I vote yes today on behalf of my community members and members of surrounding communities who were terrorized by ICE yesterday. I vote yes on behalf of the hundreds of South Burlington schoolchildren who were placed in harm's way by the irresponsible actions of ICE. I vote yes for local law enforcement officials who were not consulted before yesterday's action, but did their best to try to protect our community members as they exercise their constitutional right to protest. Finally, I vote yes for the communities who face persecution by ICE every day. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: A member from Burlington.

[Representative Dara Torre (Moretown)]: Madam speaker, I vote yes to protect and defend Vermonter's precious constitutional rights.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Essex Junction.

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: May I explain my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: I support this bill because it ensures that our constitution remains a living document As we witness a wave of abuses by armed federal agents, our job is to defend Vermonters rights and that includes their rights to seek remedy.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: My apologies. Member from Essex. Member from Clarendon.

[Representative Dave Bosch (Clarendon)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Dave Bosch (Clarendon)]: As a retired federal employee of 39 plus your service and an observer during that time, illegal cases against federal officials acting within their official scope of duty, I believe this bill to be clearly beyond our reach with regard to federal officials, and I vote no.

[Member from Williamstown (name uncertain)]: Madam speaker, I'd like to explain my vote.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Williamstown, we may.

[Member from Williamstown (name uncertain)]: Regardless of the regardless of your position on the reasons or ideology that prompted the creation of age eight forty nine, It reflects the principles articulated in federalist 51 where James Madison explained that double security protects the rights of people through the checks through checks in government. However, I do not feel that enough testimony was taken to understand the impact on the thousands of government employees that this will impact outside of those that this is intended to single out.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members, please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 97. Those voting no, 39. The ayes 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 eyes appear to have it. The eyes do have it. And third reading is ordered. Members, the final item on our action calendar today is joint senate resolution 43, which is a joint resolution providing for a joint assembly to vote on the retention of six superior court judges. This resolution has been read and appears in yesterday's journal. And now the member from Williston, representative Arsenal offers a proposal of amendment to the resolution that the first assistant clerk email to members at 02:18 today. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available on the main table. Member from Williston.

[Representative Angela Arsenault (Williston)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. As is perhaps often the case when scheduling things, back in the relative calm of early February, it's hard to imagine just how busy things will feel during crossover. So, in light of the fact that we're in the thick of it now, I propose this amended date to better serve all members of both bodies.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the question is shall the house adopt the resolution in concurrence with proposal of amendment as offered by the member from Williston. 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 adopted the resolution in concurrence with proposal of amendment. Member from Pultely, due to the timing of this, can you please offer us a motion to our rules to message our action on JRS 43 to the senate forthwith.

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam Speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to message our actions on JRS 43 to the senate forthwith.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: 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. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have suspended rules to message our action on JRS 43 to the senate forthwith. Members, that completes the orders of the day. Are there any announcements? Are there any announcements? Seeing none, member from Pulte, can you please offer us a motion to adjourn until Friday, March 13 at 09:30AM?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion this body stand and adjournment until Friday, 03/13/2026 at 09:30AM.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: 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 stands in adjournment until tomorrow at 09:30AM.