Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Good morning. The devotional today will be led by representative Page of Newport City.

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Thank you madam speaker.

[Representative Woodman Page (Newport City)]: Good morning friends. The author of this story that I'm about to share with you is unknown. The story reminds me of Aesop's fables that were created for adults, but is often used in children's education. This tale is about life and lessons for not only the young, but also the old. And like all good stories, it begins with once upon a time. An emperor in the Far East was growing old and decided to choose his successor. He called the young people in the kingdom together one day and he said, it's time for me to step down and choose the next emperor. I have decided to choose one of you. I'm going to give each of you a seed today, one very special seed, and I want you to plant the seed, water it, and come back here one year from today with what you have grown from this one seed. I will then judge the plants that you bring, and the one I choose will be the next emperor. A boy named Ping was that was there that day, and he, like the others, received the seed. He went home and excitedly told his mother the story, and she helped him get a pot and planting soil, and he planted the seed and watered it carefully. Every day, he would water and watch to see if it had grown. Time went by, some of the other youths began to talk about their seeds and the plants that they were beginning to grow. Ping kept checking his seed but nothing grew. A year finally went by and all the youths of the kingdom brought their plants to the emperor for inspection. Ping told his mother that he was not going to take an empty pot, but his mother said he must be honest about what had happened. Ping knew his mother was right. He took his empty pot to the palace, and when Ping arrived, he was amazed at the variety of plants grown by the other youths. They were beautiful in all shapes and sizes. Ping put his empty pot on the floor, and many of the other kids laughed at him. When the emperor arrived, he surveyed the room and greeted the young people. Ping tried to hide in the back. My, what great plants and trees and flowers you have grown, said the emperor. Today, one of you will be appointed the next emperor. All of a sudden, the emperor spotted Ping at the back of the room with his empty pot. He ordered his guards to bring him to the front. Ping was terrified. The emperor knows I'm a failure. When Ping got to the front, the emperor asked his name. My name is Ping, he replied. The emperor looked at Ping and then announced to the crowd, behold, your new emperor. His name is Ping. Ping couldn't believe it. He couldn't even grow his own seed. How could he be the new emperor? Then the emperor said, one year ago today, I gave everyone here a seed. I told you to take the seed, plant it, water it, and bring it back to me today. But I gave you boiled seeds which would not grow. All of you except Ping have brought me trees and plants and flowers. When you found that the seed would not grow, you substituted another seed for the one I gave you. Ping was the only one with the courage and honesty to bring a pot with my seed in it. Therefore, he is the one who will be the new emperor. This story, of course, is not literally true, but it does contain these truths. If you plant honesty, you will reap trust. If you plant goodness, you will reap friends. If you plant humility, you will reap greatness. If you plant perseverance, you will reap victory. If you plant consideration, you will reap harmony. If you plant hard work, you will reap success. If you plant forgiveness, you will reap reconciliation. If you plant openness, you will reap intimacy. If you plant patience, you will reap improvements. And if you plant faith, you will reap miracles. But if you plant dishonesty, you will reap distrust. If you plant selfishness, you will reap loneliness. If you plant pride, you will reap destruction. If you plant envy, you will reap trouble. If you plant laziness, you will reap stagnation. If you plant bitterness, you will reap isolation. If you plant greed, you will reap loss. If you plant gossip, you will reap enemies. If you plant worries, you will reap wrinkles. If you plant sin, you will reap guilt. The seeds we now scatter will make life worse or better for ourselves and for and for the ones who come after us. Someday, we will enjoy the fruits or pay for the choices choices that we plant today. So we must be careful with what we plant because what we plant today will determine what we may reap tomorrow. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members, it is our custom on Fridays to honor members of the house who have passed away since our last memoriam. Will you please rise as we remember a former house member who we recently lost? Representative Kenneth a Ken Harvey of Hyde Park was born in 1951, served in the house from 1983 through 1992, and passed away on 02/26/2026. Please join me in a moment of silence and memory of rep Harvey. Members, we have three house bills for introduction today. House bill nine thirty is an act relating to addressing and preventing chronic absenteeism Introduced by the committee on education. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[House Clerk/Reading Clerk (staff)]: H nine thirty, an act relating to addressing and preventing chronic absenteeism.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Now the bill has been read the first time and has a committee bill is placed on the calendar for notice on the next legislative day pursuant to house rule 52. House bill nine thirty one is an act relating to miscellaneous changes in education law introduced by the committee on education. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[House Clerk/Reading Clerk (staff)]: H nine thirty one, an act relating to miscellaneous changes in education law.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Now the bill has been read the first time and as a committee bill and affecting the revenue of the state, Bill is referred to the committee on ways and means pursuant to house rule 35 a. And finally, house bill nine thirty two is an act relating to the regulation of forestry under act two fifty introduced by the committee on agriculture, food resiliency and forestry. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[House Clerk/Reading Clerk (staff)]: H nine thirty two. An act relating to the regulation of forestry under act two fifty.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Now the bill has been read the first time and as a committee bill and affecting the revenue of the state is referred to the committee on ways and means pursuant to house rule 35 a. Members, we have a bill on the notice calendar also requiring referral to a money committee pursuant to house rule 35 a that is 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. Carrying an appropriation, the bill is referred to the committee on appropriations. Are there any announcements? Member from Linden.

[Representative Martha Feltus (Lyndon)]: Thank you, madam speaker. In the card room today, we have representatives from restorative justice, including Eric Marcy, Gary Autas, and Susan Russell. They are sitting in the gallery behind me. Please join me in welcoming them

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: to the people's house.

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

[Representative Jonathan Cooper (Pownal)]: Madam speaker, today in the cafeteria through the morning are members of the Regional Development Corporations of Vermont. Their charge is to grow the economic competitiveness of regions throughout our state. Executive directors are there to connect with each of you about your corners, large and small. Thank you very much.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none. Orders of the day. Members, we have a change in bill order this morning. House bill two zero five will be the last bill we take up today. That means we will start with house bill seven fifty three and proceed in order with the calendar.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Up next is house bill seven fifty three, which is an act relating to utility service disconnections and rate protections. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (staff)]: Page seven five three, an act relating to utility service disconnections and ratepayer protections.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, 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 h eight forty nine, which is an act relating to a civil action for damages for interference with state or federal constitutional rights by

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Please listen to the third reading of the bill. H eight forty nine, an act relating to a civil action for damages for interference with state or federal constitutional rights by

[House Reading Clerk (staff)]: any any government government official.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so oh, sorry. Representative North? Thank

[Representative Rob North]: you, madam speaker. After hearing the vote explanations yesterday, I was inspired to dig a little deeper into the actual language of the bill, and I and I know it's our third reading, but I and I I do have some questions for the presenter of the bill. So, speaker, may I please interrogate the presenter of the bill?

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

[Representative Rob North]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, if I'm again, I just wanna make sure I'm understanding this bill correctly. It seems to indicate that any federal employee is vulnerable to a lawsuit by a person who feels they've been who they feel has violated the US constitution. Is is that true?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Any federal official acting under color of law, so anybody acting in their official capacity be it a federal, local, local, or state official?

[Representative Rob North]: Okay. So, yes. The answer is yes. Okay. Thank thank you, madam speaker. So what what about a a contract person who's working on behalf of the federal government under the auspices of federal the government, would they be included as well? My

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: understanding is that they wouldn't be acting under color of law. But actually I need a brief recess. I haven't thought of that particular question.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The chamber will stand in recess for a few moments. Will the chamber please come to order? Member from South Burlington.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: So the answer is, of course, a good lawyer answer. It depends. But but I believe, you know, essentially what I I suggested was if they're acting under a color of law, but let me explain that a little bit further. So there's a body of case law under section nineteen eighty three that's related to contractors. And if the contractor is effectively fulfilling a government role as opposed to, for instance, construction of a building, then they could be acting under color of law.

[Representative Rob North]: Okay. Thank thank you. Basically, answer is yes if they're acting under the auspices and and fulfilling the duties of the federal government. Okay. Thank you. So, did the committee consider that there are over 400 federal government agencies and approximately 3,000,000 people that work for the US government and will now be subjected to lawsuits if they come to Vermont?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: We considered the fact that if there's a federal agents, acting in Vermont, or state or local, if they are violating the constitution, that there should be a remedy, if if that right is is impinged.

[Representative Rob North]: Okay. So all all 3,000,000 Americans. Alright. So that there's there's already existing US case laws as I believe is is cited in the not case law, but law, as I believe is cited in in the the bill 42 USC nineteen eighty three already exists, and Vermont courts already have, concurrent jurisdiction over section nineteen eighty three claims. And so the plaintiffs can already sue Vermont government officials in in Vermont state court under federal law today even without this bill. So can you give, me, and and madam speaker, a a concrete example, of a case that that could be brought under this bill that cannot already be brought under the existing, section nineteen eighty three law in our state courts?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: So, madam speaker, the case, I'm assuming against, federal officials. Just one clarification of that question.

[Representative Rob North]: Yes. So we can already sue Vermont government officials in Vermont state court under federal law. Are there any concrete examples of a case that could be brought under this law that cannot be brought under the existing law?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: But but let me just be clear. State official or federal official?

[Representative Rob North]: I was specifically asking about state government officials.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So no. It's it's very likely that any violation of a constitutional of a constitutional right by a state official could be brought in federal court under 42 USC section nineteen eighty three or with this bill if it becomes law, they could bring it in state court as well. It gives a clearer choice of where to bring such a case.

[Representative Rob North]: So an example of cases, specific cases that could be brought?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: So I mean any kind of case, it could be the I went over that yesterday as far as some of the types of constitutional violations that could be brought under section nineteen eighty nine such as a seizure or a search without a proper warrant for instance.

[Representative Rob North]: And those are not able to be brought under today's current law?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: It could be brought against a state official and this bill would allow that to be brought under state court or a federal court. It cannot currently, with limited exceptions, be brought against federal officials.

[Representative Rob North]: Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. So I also noticed similar to a bill I reported on or an amendment I reported on yesterday that it came out very close, six to five out of out of the committee, just a one vote margin on the bill. And this is this bill is is pretty broad in creating a new category of civil liability for government officials across Vermont, as you just stated. So can can you tell this body specifically what the dissenting members' objections were and why the majority was not persuaded by those arguments?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: No. No. I can't. I you you would have to ask the members who voted against us. They did not vote voice their rationales for their votes. And even even if they had, I would defer to to those members.

[Representative Rob North]: Okay. Fair fair enough. Thank you. One last question. So so if I in summary, if we summarize the bill that it it creates a cause of action that already exists federally, that preserves qualified immunity in the bill. It does preserve that. It it binds Vermont courts to follow federal precedent favorable to to government defendants. It expands the the color of law in ways that are are are challenging for most of us to understand, and it excludes Vermont constitutional rights, but it has no fiscal note. Can can you tell me in plain language so I can understand it? Who specifically is better protected on the day this bill takes effect?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Very clearly. Vermonters who have had their constitutional rights violated by state, local, or federal officials.

[Representative Rob North]: Okay. Thank thank you, member. That's helpful. And thank you, madam speaker.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? Representative, member from I'm gonna get this right. Rutland City.

[Representative Eric Maguire (Rutland City)]: Thank you, madam speaker. May I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The representative of South Burlington is interrogated.

[Representative Eric Maguire (Rutland City)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Does this bill mean that, any of my constituents that work for the federal government in the such as The US Postal Service, the USDA, Forest Service, the USDI Park Service, or even the Army Corps of Engineers are vulnerable to pernicious lawsuits if someone feels one of my constituents are perform when performing their official duties violated The US constitution?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: If if a state or local federal state, local, or federal official has violated the constitution or alleged to violate the constitution, they could be subject to a lawsuit for damages.

[Representative Eric Maguire (Rutland City)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I also asked the same question. Does this also apply to any of my constituents who work for the Veterans Administration? The, CDC, the IRS, The US, administration, or HUD. What about the FAA or the STA

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: or TSA? Excuse me. Again, if they're acting under a color of law in their official capacity and violate a constitutional provision, they could be subject, to this law.

[Representative Eric Maguire (Rutland City)]: So then if someone considers their, constitutional rights violated, they could bring a pernicious, a lawsuit against, one of my constituents. I thank the member. This short form bill was ill conceived and poorly vetted and puts my constituents in danger. For all these reasons, I cannot support the bill. Thank you, madam speaker.

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

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Madam speaker, I apologize to you and the body. I was not here late to yesterday's session at a community commitment. So if this question was answered, I apologize, but I'd like to question the reporter of the bill.

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

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Thank you, madam speaker. These are serious times for the Vermont Air Guard and Vermont National Guard. We're currently under a title 10 deployment. 32 would be state, emergencies, the civil response team, and others. But with regard to the title 10 deployment, the president is the commander in chief and not our governor. So would any actions taken at a time of war whether the constant and and I know that the constitutionality of not congressional approval of the deployment. Could any of our guard members be considered vulnerable, under this bill that was, debated yesterday?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: So if, any federal, state, or local official acting under color of law, meaning they're in their official capacity, causes harm to a Vermonter, by way of a violation of the federal constitution, they would be potentially liable.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: So just for clarification, you know, all guardsmen as all legislators swear an oath to both the state of Vermont and to the constitution of The United States. So are you saying that any of these soldiers or airmen could potentially be prosecuted under, this bill?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Again, only if, in fact, because there is something called qualified immunity, there has to be a clear violation of a constitutional right. And and I I respect federal and state and local officials and, should hope that any such clear violation will be few and far between.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Thank you. Maybe one other question. Could a defendant in a court who is found guilty but pleaded innocent, could they bring a lawsuit against a federal judge in Vermont or, under this act as well?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: I I don't see how that is possible. No. I mean, you know, if if it's a defendant in a case, it's pretty clear that courts, judges have absolute immunity. If a judge outside of his, being on the bench, I can't say, one way or another if they, somehow violate, but that wouldn't be in their official capacity. Sorry. I'm just thinking that through. So really, there's there's really high level immunity for for, for judges.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Members, thank you. And, madam speaker, thank you.

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

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, may I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

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

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, I just wanna make sure I understand what this bill purports to do. So if we have a federal employee who violates the constitutional rights of a Vermonter, this bill will give that Vermonter the ability to sue for damages that federal employee. Is that right?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Or injunctive relief. Yes.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, I'm not on the judiciary committee. Could you just explain injunctive relief?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: It would be, essentially an order, prohibiting certain behavior. It could be an order prohibiting, certain deprivation of constitutional rights.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: So, madam speaker, if I have, my next door neighbor, who is

[Unidentified Representative(s) (diarization mix)]: let's

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: say let's actually not give a very concrete example, but let's say that they are well, no. Actually, I will give a concrete example. So something that I'm deeply alarmed by, and many of my constituents and Vermonters and Americans are alarmed by. So, you know, I've worked with a lot of, refugees, new Americans, asylum seekers. And so my next door neighbor here, as an asylum seeker, it is my understanding that when you are present in The United States, you are protected by the constitution. And so if your constitutional rights, if you if your home is entered without a warrant, would this allow, someone who is here legally and their home was entered without a warrant the right to sue for damages?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Yes. With I mean, there's some complications to that that a house in very circumscribed and narrow circumstances an emergency situation can be entered. But yes, generally speaking, one must have a judicial warrant for seizure and a search in a private home.

[Unidentified Representative (possibly Waitsfield)]: Okay.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: And if I'm sorry, I didn't finish the answer. And and if that didn't occur, and that is a violation of the fourth amendment right, against searches and seizures without warrant, that could be a a case that could be brought under under this law.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: K. And if my next door neighbor is out, protesting and their right to assembly and free speech is violated and is found to have been violated in a court by a federal employee, would they be able to seek damages in that case?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Yes.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Okay. Thank you, member. Madam speaker, I thank the judiciary committee for bringing this forward. I am appalled. My constituents are appalled in little rural Vermont about what is happening in our country and what we are starting to see happen in our state. It is unacceptable. We take an oath, which I take very seriously, to the constitution as do our military, as do all elected officials and federal employees. We are all bound by the constitution. If we cannot be held to that constitution, what has become of our country? How on earth can we be opposed to this? If there are still 3,000,000 federal employees and I'm not sure that there are, What is the right percentage that we would not hold accountable for violating Americans and Vermonters rights? It is zero for me. We have got to have faith in order

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

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: have to have faith that our checks and balances and we have to work, not just faith. We have to work with law to make sure that our checks and balances in our government are functioning in order to protect our state and our country. So I thank the judiciary committee and the member for bringing forward this bill as an additional check to make sure that what I would hope we all agree, which is Vermonter's constitutional rights should not be violated by anyone, including federal employees. We have another check on that. So I will be supporting this, and I thank the committee.

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

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Burlington)]: May I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

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

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, could the presenter clarify for me? Under current law, Vermonters have the right to sue local and state officials for violations of their constitutional rights. Do I understand that correctly?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Yes. Under 42 USC section nineteen eighty three.

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Burlington)]: And with the judiciary committee's work with the judiciary, do you have any sense for how often Vermonters sue state or local officials for violations of their constitutional rights?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: I do not have an exact figure, but it's relatively low. It's not going to be easy even with this law to sue any officials. The the violation has to be very clear, that a reasonable federal or state official, would understand that it's a violation. So and I say that, to explain why there aren't a huge number of these cases.

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Burlington)]: And can the member also who is much better versed in the judiciary than I am, Can you clarify for me? I believe that judges have the discretion to dismiss lawsuits that they deem frivolous or pernicious. Is that correct?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: That is correct and not only that, if if a, lawsuit is brought that, is has no merit, to it whatsoever, there's a a rule 11 which individuals can be sanctioned for bringing frivolous lawsuits.

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Burlington)]: I thank the member and it seems to me I thank the member from Dover for her comments and it feels to me that this is not putting federal employees, some of whom are our constituents, in any undue danger as there is the protection that the judiciary can dismiss pernicious or frivolous suits out of hand. And I think in addition to protecting our constituents who work for the federal government, we need to protect all of our constituents from violations of their constitutional rights. And that includes employees of the federal government whose rights may have been infringed by another federal employee. So I am very much in support of this bill, and I thank the judiciary committee for bringing it forward.

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

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Town. All good. And may I interrogate the presenter of

[House Clerk/Reading Clerk (staff)]: the bill, please?

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

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: I don't wanna get overly complicated, but can I just give you a quick scenario that's kind of been bugging me as far as the postal service and with the proliferation of mail in ballots, which I actually support, I think it's a good thing? If a a postal employee was found to have not delivered a ballot to a house, would there be a path to a lawsuit under this bill?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: So it's not clear to me that there would be a clear constitutional violation in that particular instance. I would say that we our interference our bill that we passed earlier this year related to interference with, voters' rights, that in that instance, if that postal worker was acting with knowledge, and trying to prevent a person from being able to exercise their right to vote, they could be subject, to the penalties under that separate law. It's not clear to me whether there's a path under this particular, bill h eight four nine or not.

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Alright. Thank you, member. I just, feel like that could be a a big, can of worms trying to figure out if there was a nefarious postal worker within an office or the organization that was somehow delaying or withholding ballots, how you would, you know, kinda route that out and if this bill opened that up to a lawsuit. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? Member from Enisburg. The member is interrogated.

[Representative Allen "Penny" Demar (Enosburg)]: I I've heard with all indications that any Vermont state government employee is vulnerable to a lawsuit by

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: any Member, can you speak closer to the microphone, please?

[Representative Allen "Penny" Demar (Enosburg)]: I didn't turn it on. Alright. I bill seems to indicate that any Vermont state government employee is vulnerable to a lawsuit by any person who feels they've been violated by the US constitution. So that is correct. Right?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: That is correct, and they're already currently liable under the federal law or vulnerable, as you say, to a potential lawsuit.

[Representative Allen "Penny" Demar (Enosburg)]: Okay. Would this include any contract person or persons that's under government supervision or orders of

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: I believe I answered that earlier, and the answer is it depends on whether the contractor is effectively fulfilling the government role and thus acting under color of law.

[Representative Allen "Penny" Demar (Enosburg)]: Okay. And and and I guess my last question was, did the committee consider that there's about approximately 8,000 Vermont workers in the state government that would be subject to this lawsuit? And would our court systems be able to handle this?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: I'm very confident that very few of our 8,000 state employees who I have greatest respect for are going to be violating clear constitutional rights. So we are familiar with the number of state employees, and we feel that, we're not going to see a lot of action in court Gotcha. In on this bill related to state employees.

[Representative Allen "Penny" Demar (Enosburg)]: Okay. Thank you, member. And and I I do wanna say that I don't think we realize the unintended consequences of this bill. And for that reason, I cannot support it. Thank you. Thank you, member.

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

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'll be very brief and just say I emphatically endorse the words of the member from Dover and, will be will be supporting this bill, with gratitude to the committee.

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

[Representative Mary A. Morrissey (Bennington)]: Madam speaker, may I interrogate the reporter of the bill?

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

[Representative Mary A. Morrissey (Bennington)]: I think, madam speaker, you possibly answered this question. But does this mean that the people who work in Vermont state government and the agency of transportation, DMV, and the state police would be vulnerable to a lawsuit if someone feels they violated The US constitution?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: They they any state official, if they're acting under color of law, meaning in their official capacity, could be subject to a lawsuit if they have violated a clear constitutional right.

[Representative Mary A. Morrissey (Bennington)]: And also, thank you for that answer, madam speaker. Also, what about those who work in the agency of natural resources, department of children and families, and human services?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: I have the same answer to that.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member, Okay. What is your point of order? Member? Member, what is your point of order?

[Representative John L. Bartholomew (Hartland)]: Getting the same questions over and over again, just different categories, but this question's already been answered.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members, will the house stand in recess, and leaders please come to the podium. Will the house please come to order? Member from Heartland, I find your point of order well taken. Questions have already been asked and answered. Member from Bennington?

[Representative Mary A. Morrissey (Bennington)]: May I continue? I had another question.

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

[Representative Mary A. Morrissey (Bennington)]: Madam speaker, I I'm hoping that you may be able to answer this question. It is my understanding that the person from the attorney general's office who testified in house judiciary committee on h a 49 was now overly supportive and had concerns about the legislation. Could you share with us what those concerns were being that he was representing the attorney general's office?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: So the member from the attorney general's office did what I would hope he would do which is fully explaining the risks that we would have the potential arguments that we would be facing and laid it out that that this is very much an open question. He talked about the various supremacy clause arguments that could be brought, intergovernmental immunity, various preemption concepts, and and laid out what he understands in his view of case law that has dealt with section nineteen eighty three, which is case law that this bill would require our courts to follow. So he he laid that all out and whether he's supported or or not supportive, the attorney general's office, I I have had conversations to, you know, to ensure that, yeah, they they will defend us and they feel we have strong arguments, but I think he really allowed us to go into this with our eyes wide open that there are litigation risks. And and we think that this bill is worth, the litigation risk. Thank

[Representative Mary A. Morrissey (Bennington)]: you, madam speaker.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Question is, shall the bill pass? Member from Starksboro?

[Unidentified Representative (Starksboro)]: Yes. Madam speaker, may I inquire the report of the bill?

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

[Unidentified Representative (Starksboro)]: Madam speaker, there's been, some discussion about whether this, legislation would open up Vermonters to frivolous or pernicious lawsuits. And I'm wondering if the report of the bill can comment on the scope of qualified immunity that's included in subsection c and d and the the effect of those defendant protections on the ability to maintain a lawsuit?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Certainly, I have certainly alluded to qualified immunity and the fact that this bill would allow qualified immunity defenses that are currently made under section nineteen eighty three, the the federal law. Essentially, under the qualified immunity standard, officials are immune from liability unless a reasonable person, in their position would know that they acted outside of clearly established constitutional limits. It's a it's a relatively high bar to actually defeat a qualified immunity defense. I personally find that unfortunate, but we chose to have this as part of the bill, to make it as to make it as defensible as possible when inevitably this is challenged in court. But it does really significantly restrict the ability to hold individuals acting in their official capacity liable unless it's really a, as I mentioned, a clearly established constitutional right?

[Unidentified Representative (Starksboro)]: I thank the report or the bill. My that's fine. The way this bill is framed, what I understand from the report of the bill and the testimony that they heard, and actually the text of the legislation itself, provides very meaningful, deep, broad defenses of qualified immunity in in the bill such that in my view only extreme egregious violations of our constitutional rights would be able to be maintained under this this piece of legislation. For that reason as well as for the general reason that this is something that's very important for the state, in my opinion to have in place to protect Vermonters from violations of our constitutional rights. I will be very much supporting this bill. Thank you, madam speaker.

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

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. May I interrogate the presenter, please?

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

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: So, I guess my main question would well, I guess two of them. One of them would be, I didn't watch your entire processing committee. So in has I've sorry. Just trying to put this together on the fly, I guess. In the process of doing this creating this bill, has there already been any supreme court decisions or things of that nature, things written by the court that would lead you to believe that if this does in fact end up at the supreme court level because this is something completely new, that it would succeed or fail either way?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: So, yes, I we had testimony live testimony and and importantly, some very detailed written testimony that we that we have as well looked at. And from that testimony, the written testimony, again, I will repeat, we feel that we have strong arguments, but it's an unsettled question. Meaning that, you know, I can't predict and nobody who testified before us would try to predict how the supreme court may eventually rule on on such a law which and they have been passed similar laws in other states. There is a case that is working through the court that's challenging a slightly different Illinois law. So I think we will be getting guidance down the road because other a number of other states have very similar laws, that may be getting passed as well. But as far as predicting what the supreme court is going to do with this, I can't do that.

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: Okay. But there's been no rulings or anything by them that that would lead you to believe that they have already kinda made it known that, yes, states are allowed to do this or this isn't for something for states to do. This would be something for the fed or this congress, I guess. This this should be something for congress to do as opposed to each individual state, David.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: So so I I believe there has been, in what's called Bivens actions, that, it's been clear that the courts do not wanna expand what's called, court made common law, for, holding federal officials or state officials for that matter, I should say, liable, that it should be legislative bodies. They've specifically mentioned congress, but they have not, said that, state legislative bodies, shouldn't be doing this because they were looking at federal law not state law.

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: Okay. Thank you. I guess the second would be one of the things that keeps getting brought up is that this creates a pathway for if a federal employee has violated your rights. Is there a pathway? I mean, to me, it just seems like you'd just bring those charges in federal court. So is there already a pathway if I feel like a federal employee has?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: It's it's very it's a very narrow and narrowing pathway, through the federal Torts Claims Act and what I mentioned before, judge created Bivens action, and it has been significantly curtailed over the years. So very, very limited ability to hold federal officials in federal court to not violate constitutional rights.

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: K. Thank you, member. Thank you, speaker.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Question is, shall the bill be read? Or I'm sorry. Shall the bill pass? Representative from West Rutland. Member, I'm sorry. Member from West Rutland.

[Representative Thomas "Tom" Burditt (West Rutland)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And it's going through my mind that my chair may be thinking over there, what the heck is he doing standing up on this bill? But rest assured that I'm not standing up to speak against this bill. If I was going to speak against the bill, my chair would have been the first to know, is that to me is a very important unwritten rule. But what I am going to stand up and say is that we heard a lot of testimony in the committee. As we all hear on a lot of bills. And depending on what we hear, you know, people come down on different sides of the equation. And I came down on the side of the equation that I voted against this bill. And one of the biggest reasons is from what I heard from the director of civil rights unit of the office of attorney general. And if I may, madam madam speaker, repeat what the member from Pultely had an a vote explanation yesterday.

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

[Representative Thomas "Tom" Burditt (West Rutland)]: Thank you. And this was from the from the director of the civil rights unit who said this is a new right to sue any of the 3,000,000 or more federal employees. And there according to him, there there are 3,000,000 or more federal employees. I I think that was brought into question a little while ago. 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. And I've been around the, you know, the building for, you know, a few days now. And the testimony that I heard that convinced me to vote the way that I did was was because of the director of the civil rights unit. And I have never heard anybody bring up They can't say that this is unconstitutional because there's only one court in the land that can determine if something is unconstitutional. But I've never heard such strong cautions in my sixteen years in the building on the potential. And and with that, madam speaker, as one of the members who voted no on this bill, and because of the testimony we heard, I I take offense to the member from Dorset impinging on my voting right by stating she could not understand how anyone could vote no. And I think my explanation that preceded this certainly, says why I voted no. I'm sorry. From Dover.

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

[Representative Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Barre City)]: Madam speaker, The United States constitution was written explicitly to limit the power of the federal government and to protect the rights of our citizens In a time when not just the president of The United States, but multiple heads of federal agencies, multiple bureaucrats in Washington DC have explicitly said that they want to use extra constitutional powers to target my constituents, to target members of our community. Matter of I can think of nothing more American than providing our constituents more tools to protect themselves from an overzealous, extra constitutional federal administration that is causing severe, real, fatal harm in communities all across the The United States, the least we can do is give our citizens tools to protect themselves.

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

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker, and I want to intercept in advance a potential point of order. Regarding my question, yes, I'm an attorney. I have been in inactive status for many decades and I am not up to speed on some of the current processes that may be occurring or available in our courts. And I've heard some concerns which really to many of us would sound like legitimate concerns. And what are we opening up in terms of volume of lawsuits? And even if they turn out to be not well founded or I think word has been used pernicious, it would still take up a huge amount of court time to hear those cases. They might, you know, go to trial and end up with a decision that would exonerate the person being accused of violating constitutional rights but still be a burden on our court system and a burden on the individual who's being accused. So if I may interrogate the member from South Burlington.

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

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam speaker, I'm wondering what are the processes in our court system that potentially can interrupt or cut short a legal process that's brought that is not in good faith or, you know, pernicious or doesn't really on its face have any validity. Does that go have to go to trial and be heard to the end or what are what are the processes that can occur?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: It could it can occur fairly early in the process. Cases like under this law would start with what's called a complaint that would be filed in court, And the defendant, could answer the complaint, could file a motion to dismiss, and in in lieu of that. And in a motion to dismiss could be arguing that the underlying the the the complaint is is frivolous is the is the terminology that's in rule 11 of Vermont's rules of civil procedure. I don't recall exactly all the language in that rule but it is to prevent those kind of cases from advancing very far at all. Although it can be brought anytime during the the course of the case, but this is something that could be ended fairly early and also under rule 11, the court can sanction the party that is brought frivolous or vixatious, I think is another terminology they use in rule 11, fairly early and can award attorney's fees. So,

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: I thank the member, and I hope that, allays the concerns of those members who were, raising that particular issue.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? Member from Morristown.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker,

[Representative David Yacovone (Morristown)]: what we are talking about is a violation of constitutional rights. We, members of this body, took an oath to uphold the constitution as have many other elected officials. We should be working towards progress, not regression. Ask ourselves, how did we get here? What is the foundation of this statute? It is 2026. The violence is here. The impact is here. We are Vermonters, and it is our job to pass legislation that protects and serves Vermonters. One should only be concerned if the intent is to violate the constitution, but we don't assume a tent here. And if an individual's constitutional rights are in fact violated, they should be entitled to access to the possibility of redeeming and receiving remedy and recourse. This is an opportunity. This is not the court system. They are still a process that needs to go in place. What we are saying is that we are here to uphold Vermonter's constitutional rights and their safety and their freedom and liberties. Power and privilege comes with responsibility. We know historically, elected officials have abused that power, have hidden behind whatever cloaks you want to call it. It is our job to make sure we are doing what we can to protect Vermonters from any federal assumptions that may come. And I support this bill.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Question is, shall the bill pass? Are we ready for the question? Member from Cavendish.

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: Thank you, madam speaker. May I interrogate the presenter of the bill, please?

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

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: Just one one question, madam speaker, or couple actually. The first is, I understand this is giving citizens a path forward when constitutional rights are violated. Correct? So would the second amendment be considered one of those rights that we cannot violate under the constitution?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Presumably, yes. You know, the second amendment is one of the 10 amendments.

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: Thank you. So if a law is passed that violates that is proven in court and overturned violating that second amendment right, our state officials and anyone that enforced that law open to a civil lawsuit under this law based on their constitutional rights being violated?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: There could be a lawsuit, but, would there be any chance of of such a lawsuit prevailing? The answer would be would be no because if there was a state passed law that officials were enforcing or acting under and and ends up that it was in violation of the second amendment, They had been acting in good faith with the reasonable belief that they were acting consistent with established constitutional limits. So a qualified immunity defense would absolutely be available if it ever even got to that point.

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: So, it would be okay to violate the second amendment so long as we had that backdrop of qualified immunity?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: No. I I didn't say that.

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: So would passing a law that violates the second amendment be protected under qualified immunity?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: I'm not sure I understand the scenario because the a a law wouldn't be deemed to be violating the second amendment until a court has said so. And ultimately, the supreme court would have the final answer on that.

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: So if the Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional, then that would have been a violation of second amendment rights in order to get the court to rule it as unconstitutional. Correct?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: That could be one of the reasons why a court could find something unconstitutional. Correct?

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: Okay. So that could open a potential for hundreds of thousands of lawsuits just from Vermont should a scenario work its way through the courts?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: I I would say highly unlikely because again, if there was a case brought, it would be fairly rapidly disposed of because officers were acting pursuant to a law that had not been deemed to be unconstitutional.

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: If the law were found unconstitutional, then for the time that that law was in place, it was an unconstitutional law violating second amendment. I'll go on to my next question. Section d says Vermont courts will be guided by federal interpretation of 1983. Does guided by mean bound to it?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: No. There's there should be some flexibility in our court's proceeding and looking at jurisprudence that has already occurred with respect to section nineteen eighty three. But there there are many different factual situations that they will need to look at, and they should be guided by, you know, federal, jurisprudence on this when they are looking at the perhaps very different situations that they're asked to rule on.

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: So nineteen eighty three precedent includes decisions that have dramatically expanded qualified immunity protections for officers in recent decades. And does this then this bill doesn't give Vermonters more protection. It hands Vermont's constitutional tort law over to the federal judiciary. Is that the intent?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: I'm not sure I understand the question. If you could rephrase.

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: So, if we have to follow the precedents set by 1983, that would include all the decisions that have expanded qualified immunity.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: It would it would it would include decisions of where and how the, federal court, particularly the supreme court or in our case, the second, circuit, which is governs Vermont, what they have said about qualified immunity.

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: Right. So if we have to, if we're tied to that 1983 precedent, are we not forcing our judiciary to follow those precedents?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Those defenses are available, but as they are applied, they can be applied to very different situations and the court should be guided by the jurisprudence in the federal courts that has come before to help guide them in addressing qualified immunity in the particular factual situation that is before them.

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: Okay. So go to section c where it explicitly preserves every defense under nineteen eighty three including qualified immunity. Correct? Correct. Alright. The supreme so the Vermont Supreme Court, if it didn't have this bill, if it was absent of this bill, would be free to independently interpret our state law more broadly and potentially reject qualified immunity for Vermont officials. Correct?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Correct. But under this, law, they are not permitted to do so.

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: So by tying this bill to the 1983 doctrine, aren't you actually locking in qualified immunity for Vermont defendants, potentially making it harder for Vermonters to hold their government accountable if rather than if we had done nothing?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: No. I I just disagree with that. But I I think I've already mentioned a couple times today that qualified immunity is a high bar to get over when you're a plaintiff and and that there will be limited cases where there are egregious constitutional violations where qualified immunity will would not apply. So I I don't and and it's clear and we've made clear that the qualified immunity under this bill, as it relates to section nineteen eighty three is not to expand to other areas of Vermont law. It's it's narrowly focused on qualified immunity under this bill. If someday the legislature or the courts decide to eliminate qualified immunity in other areas of Vermont law, well, that's separate that's a separate issue.

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: So right now, is Vermont is the Vermont Supreme Court tied to the federal rulings and its and their expansion of qualified immunity? Or does the Vermont Court currently have the ability to interpret and make wide ranging decisions on whether to disqualify that immunity, that qualified immunity?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Again, they are guided by that doesn't completely tie their hands and there's flexibility given the situations and scenarios that may be before our, our courts.

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: Okay. It seems to me that we're we're tying ourselves to federal law in this way to protect and make it harder to challenge by tying us to the expanded these expanded rules from the federal government. I think this makes it harder for Vermonters. I I can't support this. And without the clarification of second amendment rights being in the violation of them, I can't support this.

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

[Representative James Masland (Thetford)]: Thank you, madam speaker. We've heard quite a bit today about unintended consequences should this bill pass. I think we should focus our intention on the intended consequences of passage of this bill, which are pretty clear and straightforward, is that none of us in the state anywhere that we that would fall under the jurisdiction of this bill should either make it happen or inadvertently begin violating constitutional rights of of Vermonters. The language of that has been proposed here is pretty straightforward, is just don't do it. If there's a question, do your homework. Figure out the consequences of a proposed action that I might take or someone else here might take. If it's a clear violation of a constitutional right, then act accordingly. But if it is not, just don't do it. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? Member from Cabot.

[Unidentified Representative (Cabot)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I think we need to always consider the unintended consequences of every bill. One of them that I'm worried about is it's similar to why we are looking to give immunity to doctors and health care practitioners on the recommended immunizations bill, h five forty five. The reason why we gave immunity to them, and this is germane, I'll get to it, is that we wanna make sure that there isn't a fear among people in that line of work to do the job so that we give them immunity. I'm worried that it was what we're proposing here in this bill is that given numbers like the 19,000 individuals who crossed the border from Canada into Vermont in 2024, that if we're leaning in the direction of making it easier to bring lawsuits against people who are in that line of work, they're less likely to wanna sign up to do the work in the first place. And I've met those people that do that job, and it's not an easy one to begin with. And so I'm in complete agreement of making sure that every Vermonter's rights are upheld. Don't get me wrong. Every human's rights are upheld no matter where you're from or how you got here. I'm in complete agreement with that. But I think the unintended unintended consequences do need to be considered and and that might be one reason why people are gonna decide to vote no and that we don't need to judge those people for doing that because I think it is a very clear consequence of this that less people will sign up to do the work of protecting Vermonters in that line of work. And I think that does need to be considered in something like this. So I just wanna point that out. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? All the if so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. I'm sorry. The ayes do have it, and you have passed the bill. Now we'll take up house bill five four nine, which is an act relating to eligibility of detainees to obtain a state issued non driver identification card. The bill was referred to the committee on corrections and institution, which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Saint Albans City, rep Luna, will report for the committee. 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 corrections and institutions. The member from Barrie City, rep Burrows, recommend for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (staff)]: H five four nine. An act relating to eligibility of detainees to obtain a state issued non driver identification card.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Reporting from the committee on corrections and institution, the member from Saint Albans City. Thank

[Representative Joseph "Joe" Luneau (St. Albans City)]: you, madam speaker. And I'd like to thank the member from Cambridge for telling me when it's appropriate to get up. So five forty nine proposes to provide individuals leaving correction facilities with non driver identification cards, replacement operator's licenses, or replacement learner's permits at no cost. Under current law, individuals sentenced six or more months can get a non driver identification card at the time they're released from a correctional facility at no cost. The bill would expand this in two ways. Firstly, individuals sentenced to six or more months can get a replacement operator's license or replacement learner's permits at no cost upon release. Secondly, individuals detained pending trial for six or more months can get a non driver identification card, replacement operator's license, or replacement learner's permit at no cost after release. Section one speaks to non driver identification cards in which subsection M clarifies the different documentation needed for real or non real IDs. Section N of section one expands upon the eligibility for those leaving the correctional facilities for these identifications. Section two speaks to replacement licenses for sentenced individuals. This was not in the bill originally. It actually came as a request from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Section three speaks to replacement licenses for individuals detained pending trial. Now, both instances, in order to be eligible for a replacement license, the person must have an unexpired Vermont license or a license that has not expired for more than three years prior. This is a DMV requirement to issue a replacement license. If the person does not have a valid license or expired more than three years, they must retake

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: the road

[Representative Joseph "Joe" Luneau (St. Albans City)]: test before the licensor may be issued. Section four speaks a replacement learner's permits for sentenced individuals. And section five speaks a replacement learner's permits for individuals detained pending trial. The person in both of these instances must have an unexpired Vermont learner's permit or a learner's permit that has expired not more than two years prior. That is a DMV requirement to issue a replacement learner's permit. If the person does not have a valid learner's permit or if it expired more than two years prior, the person must retake a test in order to be eligible for a replacement learner's permit. Section six speaks to the Commissioner of Corrections responsibility and adds that the Department of Corrections will coordinate with the Department of Motor Vehicles to provide eligible individuals with non driver identification cards and documentation, replacement operators licenses and documentation, and replacement learner's permits and documentation. Section seven speaks to effective dates. Sections two, four, and six of the bills will take effect on 07/01/2026. These are the sections pertaining to the eligibility of individuals sentenced to six months or more. And the effective date section for sections one, three, and five will take effect 01/01/2007. These are the sections pertaining to the eligibility of individuals detained pending trial for six months or more. And the reason for the difference is that in the case of the detained pending trial six months or more individuals, the Department of Motor Vehicles and Department of Corrections do not yet have a system in place for individuals who have been detained, and this will give them time to do so. Let me see. Testimony was taken from legislative counsel, from the director of operations of the Department of Motor Vehicles, from the deputy commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles, and facilities operations manager of the Department of Corrections. Madam speaker, I am but a simple man from Saint Albans, yet it's clear to me that societal benefits envisioned here are of great value and consideration of the minimal expense involved. Your committee on corrections and institutions voted 11 o o in support of h four five forty nine, and we ask for your support.

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

[Representative Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Barre City)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Affecting the revenues of the state, h five forty nine was referred to the committee on ways and means, which reports the bill as favorable. Our report can be found on page eight seventy seven of today's calendar, and the fiscal note can be found on our webpage. As members will see on the fiscal note, due to the limited amount of these IDs issued and the small fee associated, this bill would have a de minimis impact on revenues of the state. We heard from legislative counsel, office of legislative counsel, and a fiscal analyst from the joint fiscal office, and, the vote in committee was ten zero one, and we ask for your support.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on corrections and institutions? 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 eyes do have it. And third reading is ordered. Next is house bill five eighty eight, which is an act relating to professions and occupations regulated by the office of professional regulation. 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 South Burlington, representative Nugent will speak for the committee And then affecting the revenue of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on ways and means, which recommends that the report of the committee on government operations and military affairs be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Georgia, representative Branagan will speak for that committee. And then carrying an appropriation, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on government operations and military affairs and when further amended as recommend amended by the committee on ways and means. The member from Putney, representative Molliecki will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (staff)]: H five eighty eight, an act relating to professions and occupations regulated by the Office of Professional Regulation.

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

[Representative Kate Nugent (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, h five eight eight is the annual housekeeping bill for the office of professional regulation or OPR that makes changes to the laws governing the oversight, safety, and access to many practicing professions in Vermont. These changes are meaningful to both the public and the people serving in these professions. Some highlights of this bill include sections eight through 10 that pertain to making it more affordable to become an accountant by allowing experience to qualify instead of only education. Licensure remains dependent upon passing the exam. This represents part of an ongoing effort to evaluate requirements for entry into various professions and remove unnecessary barriers. Section 14 that aligns continuing education reporting requirements for advanced practice registered nurses with national standards and eliminates unnecessary requirements. And section 18 that requires the registration of massage establishments. Registration, a new requirement will provide the necessary tools and processes for OPR and law enforcement to coordinate and shut down human trafficking operations. Section 19 is also amended to establish immunity for victims of this crime. These sections will also allow OPR to develop rules for solo licensees. And now additionally, this bill in sections one through seven applies the general which apply to the general powers of OPR. Sections one through three allow OPR to rescind licenses and clarify that hearing provisions will apply to rescissions. For example, in specific circumstances including if an interstate compact is dissolved, if a license was issued by mistake and if the license fee was not paid. These sections also detail the appeals process and allow OPR to create an alternative to discipline for professionals who have substance use disorders. Sections four and five allow OPR to enforce against fraudulent attempts to obtain licenses. Section six requires members of professional boards to be adults. Section seven corrects terminology to align foreign licensees application denials with all licensure denials. Section eleven and twelve create a specific license for dentists who teach in dental schools in Vermont without a fee. Section 13 redefines provision of funeral services as providing for the disposition of dead human bodies by cremation, alkaline hydrolysis or natural organic reduction. Section 15 allows additional pathways to licensure for psychologists. Section 16 streamlines midwifery midwifery regulations to align with national credentialing procedure and gives the OPR director discretion to request individual practice data as needed rather than automatically. It is already being provided to the national credentialing entity. Section 17 creates a sunrise report for the potential eventual future credentialing of speech language language pathologist assistance. And section 20 sets effective dates. Sections one through ten, thirteen through seventeen and eleven and twelve shall take effect on 09/01/2026. Sections eighteen and nineteen which apply to the massage therapist will take effect on 12/01/2026. The government operations and military affairs committee heard from the following witnesses. Deputy secretary of state, secretary of state's office, Director Office of Professional Regulation, Chief Investigator Office of Professional Regulation, Secretary of State's Office, Deputy Chief Investigator Office of Professional Regulation, Secretary of State's Office, Policy Director Department of Health, Executive Director, Vermont State Dental Society, Owner, Gentle Landing Birth Center, Pharmacy Executive, Office of Professional Regulation, Chief Inspector, Office of Professional Regulation, Secretary of State's Office, co founder and co director of Ishtar Collective, the executive director of Vermont Society of CPAs, senior accountant, Father Gil, Segal and Valley accountants, three massage therapists from the Vermont Chapter of American Massage Therapy Association, Lieutenant Bureau of Criminal Investigation, Vermont State Police, the state's attorney from Wyndham County. The committee voted this bill out favorably ten zero one, and we respectfully request your support.

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

[Representative Carolyn Branagan (Georgia)]: Thanks, madam speaker. Madam speaker, the concern of the Ways and Means Committee regarding this bill is the revenue coming into the professional regulatory fee fund at the Office of Professional Regulations in the Secretary of State's office. You'll see the amendment. We'll we are offering in the calendar today page eight ninety five. And I have to say we rarely get such a nice little amendment to consider. The fiscal impact here of this amendment increases the revenue to the professional regulations fee fund at OPR by requiring massage therapy and body work establishments to pay a standard fee, the one outlined in three VSA section 125 B. It's $100 at registration and $275 biennially to renew their license. Solitary practitioners, however, we've decided should be exempt from this requirement and establishes, establishments with only two professionals would, pay registration fees of half, $50, and a renewal fee of $75. Data from OPR indicates that these fees, would result in up to approximately $15,000 in revenue in, fiscal year 2027 and up to $40,000 in fiscal year 2029. And then the odd fiscal years would be the same, about $40,000 and thereafter when their licenses need to be renewed. Even number fiscal years would see a minimal revenue increase from this change in provision when new establishments apply and and come on on the even years. So just to give you some perspective, the the OPR fund runs about 9,000,000,000. That's what the the balance in that fund runs. And and this would be an increase total of 55,000. So the remaining provisions of the bill have a minimal impact. I can go into them if there are questions about about that. So there's very little revenue impact, all things considered in this change. The ways and means approved this change 09/2002. And the witnesses we heard from the fiscal analysts from the joint fiscal office, the director of the office of professional regulation at the secretary of state's office, led counsel from the office of the legislative council, and massage the American Massage Therapy Association, the Vermont chapter also came in to see us. So the Ways and Means Committee, mass madam speaker is, hoping for your support. Thank you.

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

[Representative Kate Nugent (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, the government operations committee supports the ways and means amendment. We did not, take a straw poll on it, however.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Putney when he is ready.

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Your house appropriations committee looked at this bill. There were no appropriations in this this bill, but, there was a piece of this work which removed per diems, for a midwifery committee, and that that was the only piece of money that was in this bill. The, appropriations committee approved of this on a vote of 11 to zero, and we ask your support.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Thank you. Will the house please stand in brief recess? And can I see the the chair of the committee, please? Thank you. Members of the house continues to stand in recess and will the members of the government operations committee please meet in the well of the house. Thank you. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? Members, the first question is, shall the report of the committee of government operations and military affairs be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means member from South Burlington.

[Representative Kate Nugent (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I apologize for earlier trying to predict the future. We just took a straw poll on this amendment and found it favorable nine zero one and asked the body for your support.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: So the question is, shall the report of the committee on government operations and military affairs be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means. 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 report of the committee on government operations and military affairs. Now the member from Essex, representative Black and others offer a further amendment to the report of the committee on government operations and military affairs that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Essex.

[Representative Alyssa Black (Essex)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And I'd like to thank the house committee on government affairs government operations and military affairs, for hearing this amendment. This amendment was actually brought to, the committee on health care from the office of professional regulate regulation as well as the agency of human services. What it would do is it would update the statute around the regulation of pharmacists and allow pharmacists additional ability when the commissioner of health has a state protocol in that they could treat for particular tests, which are COVID, influenza, and streptococcal. They could treat once they've tested for those. This is well within the scope of practice for pharmacists practicing at the top of their license. And your house committee on health care did hear on this and on a straw poll of ten zero one. They support the amendment, and thank you very much.

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

[Representative Kate Nugent (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, the government operations and military affairs committee heard from the sponsor of the amendment as well as the following witnesses who were in agreement that this amendment will help cover gaps in health care that exist in Vermont and improve access to treatments for these three diseases that require rapid testing and treatment to be treated effectively. Representative and sponsor of the amendment, legislative council, office of legislative council, deputy secretary of state, secretary of state's office, director office of professional regulations, regulation secretary of state's office, commissioner department of health, legislative liaison, Vermont Pharmacists Association, Deputy Executive Director, Vermont Medical Society and the committee took a straw poll on this amendment and the vote was nine zero two in favor. Thank you. So

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: the question is shall the report of the committee on government operations and military affairs as amended be further amended as offered by the member from Essex and others. 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 further amended the report of the committee on government operations and military affairs. Now the question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on government operations and military affairs as amended? Are you ready for the question? Member from Jericho?

[Representative Edye Graning (Jericho)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wanna thank the members of the committee of government operations. This bill impacts our workforce significantly, specifically section nine, the CPA section. We've heard for a number of years how the lack of CPAs in the state is directly harming our Department of Financial Regulation and the businesses that work through that agency, and we're grateful to the for the changes.

[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 as amended. 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. 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 seventy four which is an act relating to the creation of the Vermont Sister State Program. The bill was referred to the committee on commerce and economic development which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Barrie City, representative Boutin will speak for the committee and then carrying an appropriation, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the report of the committee on commerce and economic development be amended as printed in today's calendar. A member from Waterbury, representative Stevens will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (staff)]: Page six seventy four, an act relating to the creation of the Vermont Sister State Program.

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

[Representative Michael Boutin (Barre City)]: Madam speaker, I would like to present to you and the body, the Vermont Sister State Program. In 2024, legislature passed act one thirty two, which created a study committee to research the creation of the sister state program. This bill is the outcome of that study. The bill's purpose statement is a perfect summation of this bill. The purpose of this program is to strengthen Vermont's international engagement and to foster mutually beneficial relationships with national and sub national governments abroad, with a goal of promoting cultural exchange, economic development, educational cooperation, and diplomatic collaboration. Members may be relieved to hear that this bill is a relatively short bill, but a good one all the same, and not only has a feel good vibe, but has the potential to strengthen our relationships abroad. Members can find the bill on page eight ninety eight. Now I will take you through both sections. Section one of the bill creates the Vermont Sister State Program. This newly established program and committee will be supported by the agency of commerce and community development. The committee will be made of nine members, the secretary of ACCD, a member of the house and senate, the chair of the board of Vermont Council on World Affairs, the Vermont Adjutant General, and the chair of the board of the Vermont Arts Council, and three members with expertise in cultural exchange or higher education. The committee will create the application process with ACCD. Once applicants are approved by the committee, the application will be submitted to the governor for ultimate acceptance to the program. ACCD will be the one that receives the applications and reviews them to make sure requirements are met before referring it to the committee with their analysis and preliminary approval. Then, the committee reviews the application and will submit a recommendation to the governor. The governor will then review the application and has the ultimate authority to approve or disapprove the application. There are there are miscellaneous times that I did not dive into. The bill also requires a report to be provided to the governor and general assembly, which will update it on the committee's work during the year, including updates on the program, a financial overview, and an outlook for the program in the next year. Members on the committee receive a per diem compensation and expense reimbursement for attendance at meetings. Let me preface my explanation for section two. The forthcoming amendment from house appropriations has substantially modified section two. However, section two of h six seventy four would repeal Vermont Ireland Trade Commission, which is set to take effect on 07/01/2026. This bill takes effect on passage. We took testimony from the following witnesses. Deborah Bluem, project manager, agency of education, Representative Conor Casey, House Committee on Institutions and Corrections, Patrick Enriquez, National Guard State Partnership Program Director, Susan Evans McClure, Executive Director, Vermont's Arts Council, Hank Carter, at that time deputy adjutant general, office of adjutant general, and at the time Gregory Seignite, the at the time, adjutant general, Vermont National Guard, Rick Sagal, Office of Legislative Counsel representative Thomas Stevens, reporter Tim Tierney, Director of Recruitment and International Trade Agency of Commerce and Community Development Lise Verunu, Sister City Committee Burlington, Honfleur, France, your House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development passed the bill eleven zero zero and asked this body to join us in approving it. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members, the first question is shall the house Thank you. And speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Waterbury.

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: You, madam speaker. Today's amendment appears on page nine zero two of today's calendar. I want to thank the member from Barrie City and staff for coming to our committee to explain this bill to us. And we have our offerings, eight instances of amendment to the bill. In the first, there was a line there was a phrase about diplomatic immunity, which is a very federal thing and the question came up in our committee and the legislative council agreed that it should be changed because this is a state function. So, the phrase was just limited to educational cooperation. Second instance of amendment, we are adding a sentence in section one, subsection D, E, and then F is new where we say any other necessary program parameters including the length of time for partner agreements in effect. And most of these changes that I'm explicating here by the instance are simply clarifications on the language that we felt we were going to be comfortable with just to clarify what the Commerce Committee was trying to do. In section one, in the third instance of amendment, we added a sentence to the end of section B which says that the committee shall not send to the governor an application that the committee does not recommend be approved. This is just again clarifying how the committee is working with the executive branch on this commission. In section four or fourth instance of amendment, it was made clear that the we we used that previous sentence and then deleted the governor shall not review or approve a program application that the committee recommended be disproved. In the fifth instance of amendment in terms of the termination of the commission, we wrote that the committee shall have the sole authority to terminate an active sister state program partnership upon the majority vote of the committee members at a committee meeting. And we added that simply because we've given this bill this bill proposes to give them the power to create the commission and that they should have the power to end it. In the sixth instance of amendment on compensation and reimbursement, which is what brought the bill to us, all that's in the bill is per diems, and we just clarify that these payments shall be made from monies appropriated to the general assembly, which is fairly common language with per diems. In section two of this instance of amendment, we make clear that the per diem compensation is coming from the agency of commerce and community development. In the seventh instance of amendment, we this is an amendment that if we have questions about that I will ask to cede the floor to the Chairman of Commerce because this is an amendment that came to us that they had written and approved, but that we are adding to this amendment for efficiency's sake. And so we basically took what they offered us and added it to this amendment. And this is on the Vermont Ireland Trade Commission which was due to end this coming at the end of this fiscal year. And so the committee wanted that commission to continue not as a separate piece, not for part of the trade commission of the sister states, but which is in the agency of commerce and community development. This is under the office of the treasurer as it has been for the last several years. And so that the amendments that you see in here, the black line changes that are in here are have been made by the committee on commerce. And we accepted those without change. And it just is a way of keeping that commission ongoing until 2029. Your committee on oh, and there will be a report offered in the 12/01/2029 with the summary of the accomplishments of the commission since its exception. So, madam speaker, your committee on appropriations voted eleven zero zero to find h six seventy four favorable with amendment. And I think that's all I have.

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

[Representative Michael Boutin (Barre City)]: Apparently, I do wanna apologize first for naming names. But with that, madam speaker, we appreciate the member from appropriations and their amendment. And on a straw vote, your house committee on commerce and economic development voted eleven zero zero in support of the amendment and asked that this body also approves the amendment.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The first question is, shall the report of the committee on commerce and economic development be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? Are you ready for the question? If so, member from Rutland City.

[Unidentified Representative(s) (diarization mix)]: Madam speaker, may I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The we are on the amendment.

[Unidentified Representative(s) (diarization mix)]: Are you Or the amendment.

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

[Unidentified Representative(s) (diarization mix)]: Madam speaker, do you have an idea the cost the estimate cost of this program?

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: The testimony testimony we received is that the the cost of the state is going to be in the per diems for the members of the commission who are, who qualify for those per diems. So and because we're taking it out of the general assembly budget, it's I believe the limit is is, $25,000 or something like that. We're much less than that based on the number of people who would qualify for that per diem.

[Unidentified Representative(s) (diarization mix)]: About $25,000?

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: It it's way below $25,000.

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

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: It's a question of it's a question of who's on the commission, whether they work for the state or they have another job that's paying for their time or whether it would be like a legislative appointment or something like legislators tend to do it. So

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

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on commerce and economic development be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the report of the committee on commerce and economic development. Now the question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on commerce and economic development as amended? Are you ready for that question? Member from West Windsor.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'd like to inquire of the presenter of the bill, please.

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

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you. Did your committee take testimony on what the actual commerce or business impacts might be as a result of investing in this program?

[Representative Michael Boutin (Barre City)]: Madam speaker, the the benefits we did it was part of the testimony that we took.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: So can you Madam speaker, could you please enunciate exactly what the commerce or business benefits might be as a result of this program? Sure. So Outside of relationships, madam speaker?

[Representative Michael Boutin (Barre City)]: I apologize. May can you repeat that?

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: I mean to say outside of relationships, I mean actual financial business impacts. Thank you.

[Representative Michael Boutin (Barre City)]: Madam speaker, I will have to defer to miss oh, the member from Jericho.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Barrie City yields to the member from Jericho.

[Representative Edye Graning (Jericho)]: Madam speaker, to answer the question, there's no way to quantify financial benefit to the state. The program is designed to for, deepen relations with multiple nations and sub nations around the world.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you, madam speaker. May I ask another question?

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

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you. Did your committee hear any data on rural, unpopulated states benefiting from programs benefiting financially or commercially from programs such as this?

[Representative Edye Graning (Jericho)]: The committee did not take testimony from other states.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Did your committee, inquire as to whether data exists on the financial or commercial benefits for rural states on programs such as this?

[Representative Edye Graning (Jericho)]: The committee did not. However, the, sister state task force that worked for eighteen months in the off session did interview a number of other states in order to understand what the best practice is when setting up these types of programs. The programs again are designed to deepen relations which eventually bring in more business, better cultural exchange, and educational opportunities to the folks in those states. And this program is designed after the best practices, that are used currently across the country.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: So, madam speaker, did that study committee or summer study, report include any actual commercial or financial, positive outcome from any state, including rural states?

[Representative Edye Graning (Jericho)]: Again, as I said earlier, it's impossible to quantify from a program like this how it will impact any specific program. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: I I, I don't stand in strong objection to this program, but I do stand in objection to this bill for the reasons implicated by, my line of question. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on commerce and economic development as amended? Are you ready for the question? Member from Burlington.

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, a previous iteration of the sister state program led to a sister state relationship with Corcoran in Russia, Ben and Jerry's leadership participated in a sister state delegation, which led to the establishment of a joint venture in Russia, which was my privilege, honor, and terror to manage for a couple of years. And I can report it may add some to this discussion that that relationship, while we sourced cream and sugar locally, the unique things that made Ben and Jerry's ice cream Ben and Jerry's, such as chocolate chip cookie dough and large chocolate chunks were sourced from Vermont companies. Rhino Foods, we shipped containers of cookie dough, chocolate chunks by Barry Callebaugh in St. Albans, again containers worth. Over the course of that program, this the something that had started as part of the sister state program led to tens of thousands of dollars of business for Vermont businesses.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on commerce and economic development as amended? Are you ready for the question? Member from Westminster.

[Representative Michelle Bos-Lun (Westminster)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I just wanted to add, I, before I was involved as a legislator, I was a study abroad provider and I worked for many, many summers in Brattleboro with youth that came to Brattleboro from all over the world. In fact, they still come. And you would go to the farmers market and you would see 30 kids from Mexico or 40 kids from Iraq or Governors Institute kids who happened to be on the campus at that time. And very much so, the students and the participants that came into Brattleboro for those exchange programs were definitely feeding the local economy. So I can't give you the exact numbers, but I can tell you that exchange programs, if they have people coming to your state, are going to bring with them expenses that are going to benefit the local economy.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on commerce and economic development as amended? Are you ready for the question? Member from West Windsor. West Windsor. West Windsor.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I just wish to reiterate that I am not opposed to creating relationships or exchange programs. I am wholeheartedly in favor of exchange programs and relationships and sister relationships and sister states and sister cities and all of those wonderful benefits. I simply do not feel that we should be spending our precious treasure on creating formalized a formalized structure at this time when we have other programs that desperately need funding even if it is under $25,000. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay.

[House Clerk/Reading Clerk (staff)]: Nay.

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

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

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and third reading is ordered. Up next is house bill seven twenty three which is an act relating to posting of land. Member from Middlebury.

[Representative Carolyn Branagan (Georgia)]: Madam speaker, I move to postpone action on h 07/20/2031 legislative day.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Middlebury moves that we postpone action on house bill seven twenty three 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 seven twenty three until Tuesday. Now we'll turn to house bill seven sixty two which is an act relating to the county and regional governance study committee. 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 Virgin's, Representative Birong will speak for the committee and carrying an appropriation, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on government operations and military affairs. The member from Putney, representative Molliecki will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (staff)]: Page seven sixty two. An act relating to the county and regional governance study committee.

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

[Representative Matthew Birong (Vergennes)]: Madam Speaker, I'll be presenting H762, an act relating to the County and Regional Governance Study Committee. Members can find the text of this on page nine zero seven of today's calendar. H seven six two is session law that amends act number one eighteen of 2024. The current county and regional governance study committee of which I co chair issued a preliminary report on November 5 recommending to extend the life of the committee in order to complete its charge. I'll give members a brief summary of that act. Act number 118, test various entities with examining how to best strengthen county level government in Vermont to enhance and optimize public safety, tax collection, and resource allocation. It created a legislator composed county and regional governance study committee to address local government capacity challenges, enhance and optimize public safety, and regional collaboration around planning, both equitable and transparent public resource allocation and of regional public services for individuals and municipalities. It created the non legislative, non legislator, county and regional governance technical advisory group to analyze the subjects, subject matter being considered by the committee and provide recommendations to the study committee, specifically on structure and organization of county and regional government. It also directed the Secretary of Administration to report to the committee on federal funding opportunities resulting from the disaster declaration of major flooding events in 2023 in the state and how Vermont's lack of robust county government has impacted the state's receipt of federal emergency funding. Now, a summary in section by section of the bill itself presented. This will amend section one of Act 118 in five ways. First, by adding a new subdivision, A one, stating the legislative intent of the county and regional governance study committee. The intent is of the general assembly that existing direct coordination and communication between the state and Vermont municipalities should be retained or strengthened. County or regional governance should be enhanced the work of local and state governments and not become a procedural barrier between the state municipalities. Second, by amending subdivision B so that there will be only one committee chair rather than two as laid out in Act one eighteen. To be selected from the members of the committee rather than ex officio chairs of both chambers government operations committee. Third, by amending subdivision C to adjust the powers and duties of the committee and emphasize coordination, increased transparency, potential efficiencies, and service improvements of non governmental agencies providing regional public services. And to analyze the role of the Department of Public Safety and Vermont Emergency Management in responding to all hazards events. Fourth, by amending subdivision E to extend the committee's report deadline from 11/01/2025 to 12/15/2026. Fifth and final, by amending subdivision F to extend the committee's sunset date from 07/01/2026 to 07/01/2028. Section two, effective dates, the bill will take, will take effect on passage. Madam Speaker, your committee on House Governed Operations and Military Affairs heard from the bill sponsor, legislative council, executive director, Department of States Attorneys and Sheriffs, director of property evaluation and review, Department of Tax. Director of Governmental Affairs, Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce, executive director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. The committee voted in favor of h seven six two by a vote of ten zero two excuse me, ten zero one, And we ask for the body's support.

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

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Your house appropriations committee looked at this bill and saw that we learned that it's estimated that in fiscal year twenty twenty seven, compensation for per diems and expense would be estimated at $15,000 Your committee approved of this and voted eleven zero for this bill and we ask for 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? Member from Swanton.

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Madam speaker, I know there are many laudable goals in this direction towards another level of government, and I think there's some real significant issues that that committee is trying to get at. But it's already proof that it expanded beyond its initial scope, and all levels of government tend to do that. My constituents can't afford the levels of government we have today. I don't need more for them. So I'm a no.

[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. 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, member from Dover.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, I wanna thank the committee for bringing these amendments forward. This was an important piece of legislation that, for a lot of our rural communities who are challenged in so many different ways. These amendments are helpful, and I'm glad to see the committee moving forward, with their work. So I'll be so be supporting this. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Members now we'll take up House Bill eight forty one which is an act relating to miscellaneous animal welfare procedures. 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 Charlotte, representative Waters Evans will speak for that committee. In effecting the revenue of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on ways and means which recommends that the report of the committee on government operations and military affairs be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Thetford, representative Maslin will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (staff)]: Page eight forty one. An act relating to miscellaneous animal welfare procedures.

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

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: Madam speaker, h eight forty one is an act relating to miscellaneous animal welfare procedures. Your committee on government operations and military affairs voted eleven zero zero in favor of the following strike all amendment which is available on page nine ten of today's calendar. So in 2024, the legislature established a division of animal welfare within the Department of Public Safety and created a director of animal welfare position. One of the charges of this new director was to present a report to the legislature eight months after they started their work. So based on the information shared in this very thorough and comprehensive report, It makes for good reading if anyone's interested. It's on our legislator page, which was issued in January 2026. This bill takes steps to allow the director of animal welfare to begin an incremental process of setting up a division that will create a unified, consistent, and necessary animal welfare system in the state of Vermont. So this work is important because right now, the system that we have, if you remember from a couple years ago, it's fragmented and confusing, which leads to not only animals suffering but people too. Just this week, 60 malnourished and mistreated huskies, including puppies, were rescued from a farm in our state. This is unfortunately one of the many recent incidents regarding and involving egregious violations of animal welfare laws. And the goal is to eliminate these instances altogether by stopping them before it gets to the point where any harm is done and creating an effective system will really accomplish that goal. As I note here, it's important to remember that animal welfare cases are often tied in with other health and safety issues, including mental health challenges and domestic violence. So while, of course, we wanna help Vermonters that are animals, this is also helpful for Vermonters who are people. So this bill takes the first steps toward achieving that goal. So if we start with section one on page five, the division of animal welfare is sorry, the director of animal welfare, and the division of animal welfare is given the authority to adopt rules to implement the rest of the responsibilities and actions that are set forth in the rest of this bill. So essentially, we're asking them to do stuff and then making sure that they have the authority to do it. The next subsection gives the director of animal welfare directions to set up a certified rabies vaccinator program. So the director will develop the rules around this program and is directed to do this in consultation with Vermont veterinarians. So right now, veterinarians are the only people who can administer rabies vaccines. In many parts of the state, there aren't vets nearby or if there are, their schedules booked very far out because they're the only one in their area. So allowing certain professionals to be certified rabies vaccinators would ease the burden on veterinarians and improve public health and safety by allowing veterinary staff, humane officers, and animal shelter staff to administer rabies vaccine vaccines to domestic pets. So veterinarians will train vet and shelter staff, and the director of animal welfare will develop a program for training humane officers. You remember, maybe from last biennium, I'm sure it's on everyone's mind, that we established the definition of a humane officer as a law enforcement officer, attorney general, or state's attorney investigator, certified humane society agent, or appointed municipal animal control officer who's authorized to enforce animal cruelty laws. So just wanna know that those people could become certified rabies vaccinators if they wanted to, but this is not requiring them to do so and no one's obligated to give rabies shots. It's just giving them the opportunity. Okay. So the next subsection, which is f one, it tasks the director with requiring animal shelters, rescue organizations, dog breeders, or anyone importing domestic pets into the state for adoption, sale, transfer, or breeding to register with the division of animal welfare. Registration will require them to include some information about the nature of their operation, like the animals that they have, how many they are, what their their health status is, and stuff like that. But this is important. It we won't charge them any fees. So it won't cost those folks any money. There's no fees. Just wanted to note there were no fees. So section the next section adds the already existing animal welfare fund, which we set up when we created the division of animal welfare. We allowed them to receive gifts and donations. This we're adding grants to that list of ways that we are allowing that fund to get money. Okay. Section two is about sexual sterilization of stray cats with no known owner. Before we get into the cats, I do wanna explain that throughout the our animal welfare statutes, whenever we come across them, there's a a little technical corrections chunk of the bill later on. Traditionally, in statute, we've used the term spay or neuter, but we are changing that to sexual sterilization since there are now new ways to sterilize a cat or any other animal, like vasectomies and chemical sterilization, which are now common methods used by veterinary professionals. So just if you see that and hear that, that's why we're using that term now. It's instead of spay or neuter. So when cats that haven't been sexually sterilized or brought to the animal shelter or rescue, they're almost never picked up by an owner. We did get data from Humane Society and other people who rescues who take in stray cats a lot, and and they they shared with us that that those animals are almost never picked up and they just stay there. So this section allows shelters or rescues when a stray is brought in from an animal control officer or other person in relation to a contract with a municipality, they're allowed to sexually sterilize the cat after a day has passed, not before a day has passed. So you can't just bring your neighbor's cat in and have it sexually sterilized after a day at the shelter or your own cat if you don't wanna pay for it. It's specifically in relation to contracts that municipalities have, like their animal control officer. They'd have a relationship with a shelter or a rescue, and and that's when this applies. It's not just willy nilly. Okay. Section three moves us on to dogs. First, it limits the number of dogs a person can own to 35. Dogs that are younger than four months old and dogs that have been sexually sterilized don't count toward this total. So you can have I guess, in theory, you could have any number of dogs you wanted as long as only 35 of them can be not sexually sterilized. So the number 35 strikes a balance between allowing hunters and others to have the numbers of dogs they need to maintain their kennels without allowing a person to own so many dogs that they could have an unregistered and unregulated breeding operation. We really don't want those. Alright. Moving on to the next section, it's about wolf hybrids. So many states, including a lie surrounding us, don't allow wolf hybrids anymore. They're essentially wild animals, and we heard testimony. It's super sad that a large majority of these animals need to be euthanized before they're three years old because they are wild animals, and they are dangerous, and often cause problems with people and and harm them. So because a bunch of surrounding states ban them, wolf hybrids frequently end up in Vermont because we still allow them. So this section requires that in order to register a wolf hybrid in the state, you can register those like you would go to your town clerk and register your dog. You can do that with a wolf hybrid, but you have to bring proof to the town clerk at the time of registration that the wolf hybrid has been sexually sterilized. So right now when you get you register your dog, it you need to bring proof that it was vaccinated for rabies, but this is an extra requirement for people who have wolf hybrids. Okay. Moving on to the next section, which is section four of the bill, it just removes entirely the statute that allows wolf hybrids to be bred. We're not going to let people do that anymore because it's dangerous. And unkind to the animals to breed them and then usually have to euthanize them after a few years. Okay. So the next four sections of the bill, which I mentioned previously, are technical corrections within the animal welfare statutes, correcting, you know, usually things that we clean up in this and then also changing spay and neutered is actually sterilized in a variety of of cases. Okay. And then section 10. It adds pet dealers to the list of organizations that can have their license denied or revoked. There are other animal related organizations that have been in statute already. This just adds pet dealers to that list. And then section 11 adds pet dealers to the penalty associated with the license denial or revocation. Okay. Moving on to section 12. It requires that a wolf hybrid older than four months old that's brought into the state for sale, resale, exchange, or donation, it cannot get the health certificate it needs unless it's been sexually sterilized. Really, no more wolf hybrids. We're we're attacking this from all angles. Okay. Section 13 requires pet dealers, animal shelters, rescue organizations, and breeders to hold a commercially reasonable level of general liability insurance to protect them and to protect other people who are coming into their place of business. All right. We're almost done. Section 14 adds some requirements to advertisements for the adoption or sale of domestic pets. So I'm sure you've seen them on social media. They list animals that you can adopt and they're very cute and they pull your heartstrings. But these ads, not just on social media, any ads, but most of them are social media related, they'll need to disclose where the pet's located, where it was located at the time the ad was placed, the license number of the rescuer shelter if they have one, and the advertiser's license number if they have one. If the ad is on social media, these conditions only apply to advertisers located in Vermont or animals that are to be transferred to Vermont or out of Vermont or offering to transfer them, either transferring or saying we'll bring them there. Okay. Section 15 is about to be addressed with an amendment, and section 16 directs the animal the director of animal welfare to issue a report to house government operations and military affairs and senate government operations that lays out the next steps in creating a complement comprehensive animal welfare program in the state. The bill takes effect upon passage. So your committee on government operations and military affairs, her testimony from the representative who sponsored the bill, legislative counsel in the office of legislative counsel, the director of animal welfare, the commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, a witness from the animal cruelty investigation advisory board, the veterinarian and executive director of S. Bay ASAP Inc, the co executive director of the Central Vermont Humane Society, the founder and executive director of Merry Muck Farm Sanctuary, a board member from the Vermont Humane Federation, and the Northeastern regional director of Humane World for Animals. We heard from a lot of people. Your committee on government operations and military affairs voted in favor of this bill ten zero one as amended, and we respectfully ask for your support.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: And now speaking for the committee, Ways and Means, member from Thetberg.

[Representative James Masland (Thetford)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Ways and Means, looked over this bill because in the language that came to the committee, it appears to have an appropriation. In fact, there is no appropriation. It's merely a transfer from one fund to another. So on the advice of legislative council, we deleted the word. We're deleting the word in our amendment appropriation and just referring to it as a transfer. We heard from, and this is in section thirty two zero three of the statute if members wanted to find it. We heard from legislative council, office of legislative council. We heard from associate fiscal officer from Joe Fiscal Office. And on a vote of ten zero one, madam speaker, we recommend the bill ought to well, that that it ought to pass as we amended with that minor change as just described. Thank you, madam speaker.

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

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: Your house committee on government operations and military affairs appreciates the work of the house ways and means committee. And with a straw poll of eight zero three, we recommend that, the body supports this amendment.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: So the first question is, shall the report of the committee on government operations and military affairs be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I would just love to add one final detail to the committee on ways and means report, which is that the bill as, it came to ways and means included a checkbox on the tech on our tax forms, to go to a fund, and we amended the bill to remove that.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on government operations and military affairs be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means? Member from Milton.

[Unidentified Representative(s) (diarization mix)]: Madam chair, I'd like to interrogate the presenter.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Milton, this is the ways and means amendment. Is that what you wish to No.

[Unidentified Representative(s) (diarization mix)]: It's the other one. Okay.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: So the question is, shall the report of the committee on government operations and military affairs be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means? 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 report of the committee on government operations and military affairs. Now the question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on government operations and military affairs as amended. Member from Milton.

[Unidentified Representative(s) (diarization mix)]: Madam chair, I'd like to interrogate the presenter of the bill.

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

[Unidentified Representative(s) (diarization mix)]: Madam chair, is it is it my understanding we will no longer use this term spay or neuter from this day forward if this is approved?

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: No. Madam speaker, you may use whatever terms you would like to refer to those particular procedures. We are expanding. We are there are a variety of ways to keep domestic pets from reproducing. Two of those ways are spaying and neutering. We are just using the term sexually sterilized sterilized instead of listing all of the ways that one could do that.

[Unidentified Representative(s) (diarization mix)]: Thank you, madam chair.

[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 as amended? Member from Derby.

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Last summer, my town, my county experienced the rabies endemic, if you will, and it was, quite severe. So I'd like to interrogate the presenter of the bill, the member from Charlotte.

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

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, in section c on page nine twelve under three VSA chapter 25, The program shall authorize the director of animal welfare and consultation with Vermont Veterinarians to establish a program to train humane officers as certified rabies vaccinators. Does this imply that the director will be training these humane directors or people that work at shelters, or does it mean that veterinarians themselves will be training?

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: Madam speaker, I believe that both of those things are options. The director of animal welfare will not be re will not be training all of the certified rabies vaccinators. The director is going to is charged with developing a program that would lay out the rules for establishing people as a certified rabies vaccinator.

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Okay. Thank you. And if these people that work at shelters or at other places, non doctor types are trained to vaccinate. Will they only be vaccinating when a doctor is on the facility and in the house?

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: The purpose of the program is to enable them to vaccinate without a veterinarian there, but there will be a supervising veterinarian that takes responsibility for those people who work in their shelter or rescue or vet office. So there is a a supervising vet. They just don't necessarily need to be right there with them.

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Thank you for that. I'm I'm done with the interrogation. The rabies vaccination protocol is set at the highest standard. And I the reason I know this is my wife is a animal mechanic, veterinarian, if you will, and they have a very high bar of protocol they follow. And the reason of this is rabies truly is a life or death matter. It's not a case of the sniffles. If animals not is assumed to be properly vaccinated, and it isn't, And it gets exposed to rabies and then from a a from another vector and then bites somebody, and it's assumed to be properly vaccinated. And if it wasn't, there could be dire consequences. So I I do have a small issue with this this bill, this change. I really think that those standards should be upheld. The other comment I have is you're you're fairly hard on wolf hybrids. And although there's not a large population of wolf hybrids in the state, there is quite a robust population of large breed defensive guard type dogs that can inflict terrible damage on people, and if not properly trained, and perhaps you should consider a spay neuter sterilization, if you will, program for those types of dogs unless they're being held for breeding purposes because they are as we all if you watch the news the other night, we had a tragedy right here in in Vermont. So that's my comment. Thank you. Thank you, madam speaker. Thank you, presenter.

[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 as amended? Are you ready for the question? Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I I just have a a few, brief, questions or clarifications. If I could interrogate the member from Charlotte.

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

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam speaker, I'm looking on on page, nine fourteen, and it's sub under, fifty three eighty one subsection two. And I recognize I'm asking about existing law. This section did have some amendments in it, though, so it, maybe opens the door. I I was confused about, the reference to neutered dogs, along with wolf hybrids. And I recognize all the issues around wolf hybrids that are being addressed. But I'm not sure why the person who's obtaining a license for a neutered dog has to prove that the dog is sexually sterilized.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: Madam speaker, are you referring to to language in August, or are you referring to current statute?

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Current statute under Section 3581B which has some amendments to it. The amendments don't involve, neutered dogs. But they reference it's B as before a person shall be entitled to obtain a license for a neutered dog or wolf hybrid. Person shall exhibit to the clerk a certificate signed by a duly licensed veterinarian showing that the dog or wolf hybrid has been sexually sterilized?

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: I don't know. I I I did not or we did not our committee did not work on that that statute at this point in time.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank thank you, member. The only the other question I have, which was just referenced is the, the the death in Burlington and parts of this bill obviously have to do with the responsibility of owners. I had a constituent who sent me a note saying, if there's ever a need for testimony on this issue, I understand it's being taken up in the legislature. She sent horrific pictures of her own injuries and and what happened to her, which was fortunately, she didn't die but had really severe injuries. And I recognize that there would have been no time left really before crossover, before bringing this to the legislature or pretty extreme small window. But I'm just wondering if the committee did, talk at all about, further or future, work on that issue that might address a heightened level of responsibility of owners in terms of injuries to others? We did not. Okay. Thank I thank the member.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on government and military affairs as amended? Member from Derby.

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I apologize. I had one more question for the presenter of the bill. Short one.

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

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And perhaps it was stated in your people that came in and testified before the bill, and I didn't catch it or hear it. But did the VVMA, the Vermont Veterinary Medical Association, come in and testify before this bill?

[Representative David Yacovone (Morristown)]: Holds, please.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: Madam speaker, could you repeat the name of that organization?

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: The Vermont Veterinary Medical Association, the VVMA.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: I do not believe so.

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, madam speaker.

[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 as amended. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. 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? Member from Georgia.

[Representative Carolyn Branagan (Georgia)]: Madam Speaker, I'm concerned about this bill. I'm even more concerned after we heard the presentation this morning. I don't think it's received enough research. I don't think they've talked with the specialists in this field that should have been consulted so that there's enough information to know that we're going forward safely and in a way that will ultimately protect Vermonters. I'm wondering, madam speaker, about transferring this bill over to the committee on agriculture here in the house. I don't know the procedure to recommend that. Is it a motion? Or

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Yes. Member the member from Georgia requests that house bill eight forty one be committed to the committee on agriculture, food resiliency, and forestry. 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 commit the bill to the committee on agriculture, food resiliency, and forestry. The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member from Georgia.

[Representative Carolyn Branagan (Georgia)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And I don't wanna belabor the point, but what we're doing here involves human health too. I We had a person running for office in Franklin County who got bit by a household dog and ended up being six weeks in treatment for rabies campaigning during the summer. The dog came through the screen door. No rabies certificate was available. This is a serious thing, and I I really don't think this, has been thought through. And, I'm I'm disappointed that we can't take further, caution with this. These are people's lives involved.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The eyes do have it in third reading is ordered. Members of the next bill on our action calendar today is house bill five forty two, which is an act relating to terminating testing of schools in Vermont for PCBs. The bill was referred to the committee on education which recommends that the bill ought to pass. The member from Cornwall, representative Conlon will speak for that committee and carrying an appropriation, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations which also recommends that the bill ought to pass. The member from Burke, representative will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (staff)]: H five forty two, an act relating to terminating testing of schools in Vermont for polychlorinated biphenyls.

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

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: H five forty two, in a nutshell, ends the mandate that by 2027, all schools in Vermont conduct indoor air testing for polychlorinated biphenyls, which we will now call PCBs, and that any remaining funds that exist for PCB testing and remediation be reserved only for those school buildings that have been found with PCBs above action levels created by the state and are undergoing remediation and ongoing testing. Before diving into the bill, a little history. In the final days of the 2021 legislative session, a small addition was made to the budget bill requiring that all school buildings in Vermont built before 1980 be tested for airborne PCBs by 2024, and that the Vermont Department of Health develop the testing levels and protocols. While well meaning and prompted by the PCB levels found at the former Burlington High School, the proposal did not get the hearing it deserved, especially concerning the cost and consequences on schools if they were found to have airborne PCBs present. Yet it moved forward, as did the Department of Health, in developing the immediate and school action levels for testing. In 2023, with the program developed and the 2024 deadline looming, the legislature appropriated $32,000,000 to the testing program, half devoted to helping Burlington School District pay for the removal of the PCB contaminated building materials following the high school's demolition, and another 16,000,000 devoted to the testing program and any resulting remediation in the remaining 300 plus schools built before 1980. The testing began, and soon some schools were hitting the action levels created by the Department of Health, significantly disrupting school operations and creating fear in the affected communities. It also became clear that the 2024 deadline to test all schools was not going to be met, and that the cost to repeatedly test, to investigate, and perform remediation if all schools in Vermont were tested was going to cost well over the remaining $16,000,000 It was clear that amount was probably not enough just to handle the handful of schools already found above the state action levels. For example, to date, the state has spent over $8,000,000 on remediation at North Country Union High School in Newport alone. With that daunting future in 2023 and 2024, this body voted strongly to pause the testing program until a pan a plan for paying for it and the resulting remediation cost was developed. Both efforts failed in the other body amid strong opposition from the administration, though at least the testing deadline was moved to 2027. Last year, it was clear the original funds set aside were fully spent. So the Department of Environmental Conservation moved 9,500,000.0 from its environmental contingency fund to continue remediation and testing of the affected schools. Earlier this year, that fund was down to 4,500,000.0, and all of that really earmarked for work on one school. The administration has asked for no further appropriation for PCB testing or remediation this year, leaving essentially $0 for any new testing and remediation. But the dead but the 2027 deadline to to test remains. This bill would remove that deadline and essentially end the air testing program for any untested school since there is no money to pay for it or for any remediation. Madam speaker, I wanna be clear. This bill is not about the science of the testing. It is not about the potential health effects of airborne PCBs. This bill is solely about what could become a huge unfunded mandate if we do not remove the requirement to test by 2027. Without the state dollars without state dollars, the expense of testing and remediation would fall solely on property taxpayers. Now to the bill. This is essentially a one section bill of session law with numerous subsections and subdivisions. Subsection a one removes the testing requirement and deadline that was created in 2021 and then extended again in 2023 to 2027. I've got the glasses on here. Alright. Subdivision two once again assures the state will pay for any ongoing required testing at any affected school. Subsection b one reiterates the commitment that the state pays for remediation costs for those affected schools. Subdivision two states that a school does not have to do remediation if it is not funded by the state. Subdivision c states that the current money allocated is reserved only for the investigation, remediation, and removal of PCBs at affected schools. Subdivision four requires a report from the agency of natural resources about if and when the money runs out as to how much should be appropriated to fund the ongoing investigation, remediation, and removal of PCBs at affected schools. Subsection c does not apply is to state that the this does not apply to PCB testing done outside of the mandatory air test created in 2021, such as testing required for major renovations or demolition. You'll see a mention here of the $60,000,000 that has been appropriated to Burlington and that is because it also its impacts on remediation happened prior to the mandatory air testing, but was actually what prompted the mandatory air testing legislation. Subsection d requires a report and recommendations for long term long term remediation for PCBs. And subsection or section subsection e, excuse me, also reports an an annual report on the state of the testing program and the remediation measures done to date at those schools above the action levels, and how much money is available and how much will be needed in the in the future for future work. Finally, section two is the effective date, and it says that this act will take effect on passage. I thought I might just speak a moment about those schools that have been tested and are currently undergoing remediation in an era when the funds are quickly running out. We had testimony from the Department of Environmental Conservation, which has been heading up the program, that the current schools currently affected with the money spent, they are at, I would call manageable levels that between remediation work done, air quality filtration that is going on, and limiting use of various spaces in school buildings that these schools are able to manage, keeping students and adults out of rooms that are above the school and immediate action levels. So everything is in kind of a holding pattern at the moment with apparently safe levels and a relaxing of the need to continue to test those schools that have been affected as long as that those management plans continue to to do the job. Madam speaker, the committee voted nine two zero in favor of this bill. The committee heard from the director of the waste management and prevention division at the Department of Environmental Environmental Conservation, the superintendent of the North Country Supervisory Union, the senior environmental program manager from the Department of Environmental Conservation, the superintendent of the Franklin Northeast Supervisory Union, the superintendent of the Caledonia Central Supervisory Union, the superintendent of the Wyndham Northeast Supervisory Union, superintendent the of the Two Rivers Supervisory Union, legislative council, and the superintendent of the Hartford School District. Madam speaker, that concludes my report, and we ask for the body's support.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Now recommending for the committee on appropriations, the member from Burke.

[Unidentified Representative (Burke)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Members of the appropriations committee received testimony from the education committee regarding h five forty two that proposes to end ongoing air quality testing for the presence of PCBs in Vermont schools as performed by the agency of natural resources. Members of the appropriations committee also received testimony from the joint fiscal office that no appropriation is required to end testing, but did specify as reported today in the fiscal note that H542 would not alter ongoing state funding for the investigation, remediation, and removal of PCBs at schools that have tested positive, including our reporting requirements by the agency of natural resources. With a vote of ten one zero, your appropriations committee recommends the bill ought to pass. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member from Newport.

[Representative Woodman Page (Newport City)]: Thank you thank you, madam speaker. I'd like to interrogate a member from Cornwall.

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

[Representative Woodman Page (Newport City)]: Yes. Could you list the affected schools, and is North Country Union High School an affected school? I

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: I cannot list the affected schools, but I can confirm that North Country is, in fact, one of the affected schools.

[Representative Woodman Page (Newport City)]: Okay. Thank you. And can you also con con can you also confirm that North Country will continue to receive funding for any future remediation that may be necessary?

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Between this bill and previous legislation that we passed, we have made clear that the state is to pay for all remediation that is caused by the indoor air testing program, again assuming that there's money to pay for it.

[Representative Woodman Page (Newport City)]: Very good. Thank you very much.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Question is shall the bill be read a third time? Member from

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

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Thank you, madam speaker. To test without a plan for the results you find is called an experiment. And, unfortunately, the school in my community, North Country Union High School, of which I'm the school board director of, has been one of at the forefront of this experiment. I I appreciate the ongoing funding that'll come to help us with remediation. We are at about $8,400,000, and we're not proud of that fact. Matter of fact, the first meeting we had with DEC and people from the Vermont Department of Health, it was told to them that we will spend, at that time, more than 10% of what it would cost to build a new school and not cure the problem, of which we did. Of course, now to build a new school is much more expensive. So I stand here today in support of this bill, and hopefully we'll figure it out. Thank you.

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

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I have very serious misgivings about this bill, and I'm not rising to suggest a solution, to the problem in front of us. But every time we initiate an action to respond to a problem, we're generally balancing, in this case a safety risk against the cost to address that safety risk. In this case, we identified a serious safety risk. We appropriated money. We identified a path forward. And it has turned out to be vastly more expensive than we anticipated. If that decision making process looked and said way too much money and actually false degree of alarm over the safety risk that caused us to pass this law, then that would all make sense. I was gonna interrogate the member from Cornwall about the testimony, you know, on the health side. Did we get reassurance that actually this was not as severe a risk as we thought it might be for our students when we originally passed this? But I don't need to ask that question because he was explicit that in fact this had nothing to do with the original safety assessments and recommendations. So it's purely about the money. It's not about whether or not our children are safe in the schools. And in fact, we have the tremendous inequity that some schools have been tested and are remediating, and some haven't been tested at all. We have no idea, in other words, whether those students, compared to other schools where students aren't allowed in certain rooms because of the test results, other students in our state may

[Representative David Yacovone (Morristown)]: be

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: in an environment where they're at severe healthy risk health risk. And and we don't know that at a point where we're making a decision to terminate a program because it's costing much more than we expected. I noted in the list of witnesses, the Department of Health, which set these standards and is in charge of assessing and telling us the degree of health risk, was not even on the list of witnesses. Madam speaker, I think that this really ought not to move forward in this way, without having that kind of assessment. I can't support it just based on money alone without delving into whether the degree of our concerns initially were were not necessarily accurate, or whether the health risk isn't as extensive, or whether we recognize that the health risk we can't address because it costs too much money. But then we're making an informed decision, about not addressing it rather than not evaluating, whether we are leaving a number of children in the state at high risk. I I guess I do still have one question for the member from Cornwall, and that is if my memory serves me right, and it doesn't always, I believe there had been discussion at the time that there was a federal level

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member, do you wanna interrogate the witness the member from

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: I do, but I was going to give the lead in first so that, folks didn't say it sounded like I was still arguing. If I recall correctly, the federal, there was a federal standard, and then we had a state safety standard developed by our own state. And that our standard for acceptable limits was much lower than the federal standard. So there was a lack of agreement on that. And so I would like to interrogate the member from Cornwall.

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

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam Speaker, I'm just wondering whether the committee looked in terms of cost at whether perhaps the federal standard, was a reasonable way to move forward if it was much less restrictive than the state, standard in order to, perhaps, result in, some positive results that were could be found or were found validly still acceptable based on that standard. And and potentially save a lot of money but still be able to identify whether children were at serious safety risk, rather than terminate terminating the program. Was was that something that was looked at at all?

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Thank you, madam speaker, for the question. There has been a fair amount of confusion about comparing a federal level to the, levels that were created by our own, department of health. When it comes to the federal levels, it is really about the presence of PCBs in materials, in building materials as opposed to airborne PCBs. So it is it's it's difficult to compare the two as to what is more stringent or relaxed than the other because you're really measuring two different things. We our committee, you know, has heard testimony throughout the years, last year, previous years. We've had votes on this floor on the program as well. So a lot of this has been part of our history in the committee. We did not take further testimony on those matters because what we were mostly concerned about was that this deadline is looming and there has been no further appropriation for money to make it happen. I should also point out that there is nothing barring any school district from testing. This is about the mandatory requirement and the lack of funds to go along with it.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: I I thank the member. That leaves my misgivings and my concern about moving forward very much in play. Certainly, any school can do it, and that puts it on their individual property owners, taxpayers to pay for that rather than it it being a a state commitment when in fact we have already funded that work for many of our schools, but are leaving some out. So I I I think the issue, of course, is are we gonna come up with the money to address what we identified as a serious safety risk for our school children? Is our answer gonna be, nope. We're just gonna stop paying for it. Are we gonna delve into that balance between the degree of health risk and the cost, and perhaps extend more time to analyze that more, but not terminate the program. So under the circumstances, as we have it from the bill today to terminate, I cannot in conscience support a bill, that abandons, the issue of the degree of health risk, to our students that were the, cause of passing this legislation in the beginning.

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

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Thank you, and thank you for pointing out that, yes, schools can voluntarily test, and it would fall on the property taxpayers. If we let this two twenty twenty seven deadline stand and have no appropriation, this it would be the same result and it would be mandatory across the state.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Question is, show the bill be read a third time. Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam speaker, I can just point out the solution to that is to push the date back and allow more time to proceed, not to terminate the program and say, the heck with the safety of the kids, we're not doing it anymore without evaluating, the degree of risk we're leaving our children in.

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

[Unidentified Representative (possibly Waitsfield)]: Madam speaker, may I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

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

[Unidentified Representative (possibly Waitsfield)]: So I have a so I will have a comment and then a question. I I share some concerns similar to the member from Northfield, but I also recognize that a program that has run out of money and spent a lot more than was anticipated seems like a prudent act. And it also sounds like from what I understood from the presenter that Vermont is testing air quality in schools versus the federal mandate where, they are testing materials in school buildings. And I'm not sure what is the right approach. You know, I'm I'm curious how if the chair or the presenter has an idea of how many schools, like what percentage of schools have been tested in the state of Vermont thus far?

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Yes. So within the state, we have 328 school buildings that were built and or renovated before 1980. A 157 have completed air sampling. 46 were detected to have PCB levels in excess of what they call the school action level. But that doesn't necessarily mean that these were educational spaces, sometimes they were janitor closets and and the like.

[Unidentified Representative (possibly Waitsfield)]: Thank you. And so I guess my follow-up question is knowing that there's no money for this program and so this bill is suggesting to complete, to stop the program, is there a path forward that your committee or another committee or an agency is working on to know, recognizing the financial challenges, but but how how do we move forward in some capacity so we don't just sweep this under the rug because we can't afford it? So I am supporting this bill, but I I am curious about what our path forward is. Thank you.

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Sure. Yes. Thank you. The the apparatus for this testing program sort of the the gained experience all still lives. And I think that, you know, if if a future legislature appropriates the appropriate amount of money to move forward, there is absolutely no reason that the air testing program couldn't restart. Just wanna point out a couple other things. The Vermont air testing program is unique probably in the world. I'm not we have not heard of any other place that tests. That the levels that were created were created by our own Department of Health. And so when we sort of talk about this program, I just wanted to be clear that that we don't have experience in other states or other even other countries to sort of fall back on as to, you know, appropriate levels and whatnot. So I just wanted to provide that context.

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

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Permission to speak a third time? Yes. Yes. Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, it seems clear at this point that the question of the health consequences to our school children based on terminating the program at this point, have not been evaluated in bringing this bill forward. I would move that it be committed to the committee on health care.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member is requesting that the bill be moved to house health care. We'll stand at recess for one second. The member is requesting a roll call. Is the member sustained? The member is sustained. When the roll is taken, it will be when the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. The question is shall the bill be committed to the committee on health care? When the clerk is ready, she can call the roll. Oh, are you ready for the question? Member from Burlington.

[Representative Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Barre City)]: Madam speaker, I do not support this motion. The house health care committee has never taken testimony on this issue, so it makes no sense why we would do it at this time. Thank you.

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

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Before we go to vote, I just wanna correct what may have been misinterpreted. While there are federal levels set for materials that has much more to do with when doing a renovation or demolition project, there is no federal What

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: is your point of order?

[Representative John L. Bartholomew (Hartland)]: I believe that this debate is beyond the allowable debate for the motion. Motion has to be limited to the appropriateness of the committee to which it's being suggested to be committed.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the body stand at ease for a moment? Member from Heartland, I found your point of order well taken. The motion is the motion to refer is debatable only as to the propriety of committing the main motion and does not open the main motion to debate. The question is, shall the bill be committed to house health care? Are you ready for the question? Member from Essex.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: I'm on speaker. I would Oh.

[Representative Alyssa Black (Essex)]: Out. Am I am I on speaker? I would just like to point out before people vote that this is a matter of public health, and the committee on health care does not have jurisdiction over public health.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you ready for the question? When the clerk is ready, she begin begin to call the roll.

[House Clerk/Reading Clerk (staff)]: Arsenault of Williston.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Two minutes. 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 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, should this bill be committed to the house health care committee? The clerk may continue to call the roll.

[House Clerk/Reading Clerk (staff)]: Austin of Colchester. Bailey of Hyde Park. Bartholomew of Heartland. No. Bartley of Fairfax. No. Rebecca Vanusky. No. Byrong of Regents. Bishop of Colchester. Black of Essex, Bloomley of Burlington, Bos- No. Westminster, Bosch of Clarendon, Putonbury City, Boyden of Cambridge, Brady of Williston, Branagan of Georgia, Brigham of Saint Almistown, Brown in Richmond. Burditt, West Rutland. Burkhardt, Burrow. Burkhardt of South Burlington. Burrows, West Windsor. Burt Cabot. Kim Old St. Johnsbury. No. Canfield of Fairhaven. No. Carris Duncan at Whitingham. Casey Montpelier. No. Casey Hubbardton. Chapin East Montpelier? No. Charlton Chester? No. Christie of Hartford? Gina of Burlington? Coffin and Cavendish.

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: No.

[House Clerk/Reading Clerk (staff)]: Cole of Hartford. No. Conlon and Cornwall. No. Cooper Pownall. No. Corcoran of Eddington. Critchlow of Colchester? No. Demar of Ennisburg? No. Dickinson of St. Albans Town? Doverville, Williamstown? No. Dodge of Essex? Dolan of Essex Junction? Dolgin of St. Johnsbury.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: No.

[House Clerk/Reading Clerk (staff)]: Donahue of Northfield.

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Yes.

[House Clerk/Reading Clerk (staff)]: Duke of Burlington. No. Durfee of Shasbury. No. Eastes of Guildford. No. Emmons of Springfield. No. Feltus of Linden. Galfetti of Barrytown. Gary Fono of Essex. Woman of Rockingham. Good now. Brattleboro. Yes. Ghostland in Northfield. Granting Of Jericho. Greer Bennington. Yeah. Greg Burkhardt of Fairfield. Hango Berkshire. No. Harbaugh Blover. No. Harvey of Castleton. Yes. Hedrick of Burlington. No. Higley of Lope. No. Holcomer Norwich. Cooper of Randolph.

[Unidentified Representative (Burlington)]: No.

[House Clerk/Reading Clerk (staff)]: Cooper Burlington. Howard City. Holland or Rutland Town. Point Of Hartford. Hunter Manchester. No. James of Manchester. No. Cassandra Burke. No. Keyser of Rutland City. No. Kimball Woodstock. No. Klepner, Burlington. Kornheiser, Brattleboro. No. Krasno, South Burlington. No. Kerwinski, Burlington. No. Lebor Morgan. No. Mollie Schauburn. Malone of South Burlington, Lamont Morristown, the Russia Franklin, Lipsky of Stowe, Logan of Burlington, Long and Uffin.

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Burlington)]: No.

[House Clerk/Reading Clerk (staff)]: Leaders of Lincoln. Yeah. Uno of Saint Albans

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: City. No.

[House Clerk/Reading Clerk (staff)]: Maguire of Rutland City. No. Malay of Pittsburgh. No. Marquette of Coventry. No. Maslid Feltbird. No. McFarland, Barry Town. No. McGill of Newport. No. Nicholas of Milton. Mollie of Callis. Many of South Burlington. No. Morganella Milton. Morgan Emma Milton. Yes. Morrissey Springfield.

[Representative Rob North]: No.

[House Clerk/Reading Clerk (staff)]: Morrissey Bennington. Ora Weston. No. Nelson at Derby. No. Nielsen at Brandon. Michael Benington. Martha Fairsburg. Yes. Moise of Wolcott. New to South Burlington. O'Brien of Tonbridge. No. OD Burlington. No. Oliver Sheldon. No. Olson of Thirksboro. No. Paige of Newport City. Parsons of Newberry. Peso of Colchester. No. Pinson Aldo Dorset. No. Potts of Heinzburg. No. Powers of Waterford. No. Rachel's in Burlington. No. Cyclots Randolph. Shia Middlebury. No. Sheldon in Middlebury? No. Sebelius of Dover? South North Of Walden? No. Squirrel of Underhill? No. Studying Milton? Stephens Waterbury. Stone Of Burlington. Sweeney of Shelburne. Taylor Milton. Thomas Tomlinson. No. Torrey Moore Town. No. Walker Swanton. No. Wausau Zacobarie City. No. Waters Evans And Sherlot. No. Wells Of Brownington. What do Weitzfield? No. What do Bethel? No. Winter Of Ludlow?

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: No.

[House Clerk/Reading Clerk (staff)]: Wood Waterbury?

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

[House Clerk/Reading Clerk (staff)]: Yacavonia, Morristown? Byron or Vigenz? Berger Brattleboro Casey Hubbardton Christie Harford Dickinson of Saint Albans Town Cooper Burlington, Hood Hartford, Klepner of Burlington, Kerwinski of Burlington, Miclissa Milton, Nielsen of Brandon, Nigro Bennington, Parsons and Newberry, Secwitz and Randolph, Stone of Burlington, and Yacavoni and Morristown.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: For purposes of explanation, member from Westminster.

[Representative Michelle Bos-Lun (Westminster)]: I have strong concerns about PCBs in schools. Sending this bill to health care will not address these concerns.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Please listen to the results of the vote. Those voting yes, 16. Those voting no, 119. You have declined to commit the bill to health care. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Cornwall.

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Thanks. I just wanted to direct members to section d, where we talk about, you know, what does the what what does the future hold? I'm just gonna read section d. On or before 01/15/2027, the secretary of the ANR in consultation with the secretary of education, representatives of schools, other interested parties shall submit to the usual committees a long term remediation plan for the remediation of PCB contamination in public schools and approved and recognized independent schools in the state. So the, bill before you does require, the ANR to come up with a plan, for the future and make recommendations to the legislature.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Swanton.

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Madam speaker, may I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

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

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Madam speaker, in the, testimony that was received in the committee, was there any testimony taken or questions asked in relation to if the body were to pass this legislation, what is the impact on the ongoing lawsuit to recover some of the money that has cost our state in these materials?

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: There was no testimony in the committee about the impact of this on the on the current lawsuits. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: From many accounts, at least opinions of many, passing this bill will pretty much or pretty much put a major death blow to that lawsuit because we are basically abandoning the standards under which we were suing. So that is a consideration. But I also wanna thank the member for pushing forward when no one else is offering a solution or conclusion or direction in related to this and to be the target for quite a bit of activity when there are no other solutions being offered. It's a cautionary tale in that this is one of the first things that I faced when I first came to the chamber and a cautionary in the in the effort of the state to rush to be the first to test at this level, to rush to be a state that has standards five times higher than the federal standards in a big rush to go out and say, are doing it for the students. And they're running around saying, if you didn't vote for this way back originally in 2021, that you were endangering the students or you didn't wanna save the students. Everybody wants to do that. But in the rush to be first, in the rush to be five times stronger than the federal standards, and the rush to run out and do this without a huge, without the full funding and the full understanding of what we're getting into has put us into a statewide mess. We've we've hysteria to parents. We have a a real unknown that's been pointed out prior to being here. We've also continued on the inequity when it comes to rural in this state. Over 40% of the money went to one school. They got a brand new school. What about all the rural schools that are now left in the, you know, left in the lurch? And I I think it's it's terrible. I think we have to do something and move forward, and I appreciate the member's effort to do this. But the rural inequity continues, and they took all of the money, and they have a new school, and there's an awful lot of students and parents that still have no idea where they stand and what's safe and what's unsafe. So when we rush to go forward, and we rush to have our own standards and we rush to be first in the nation, and we do a lot of those things in this building, this is a major cautionary tale, and it continues to push the divide between sort of the higher populated areas and the rural areas and how we address things. I do appreciate the member trying to find a solution and a direction forward.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member from Franklin.

[Unidentified Representative (Franklin County)]: Madam speaker, just as a comment, this is a risk management and a risk mitigation problem that we have, and I haven't seen anybody approach it in that way. There are many places and many different topics in which risk management is actually applied. And I think going forward if we were to think about this in those terms and get professional advice in terms of how that might be achieved. We know we have ways of of, cleaning the air or, you know, and we just need to know when, where, and how long to do it. And a lot of that could be covered I think if you had someone or some agency that really did a good risk management assessment of this for what it's worth. Thanks, madam speaker.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay.

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

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and third reading is ordered. Now we will take up house bill two zero five, which is an act relating to agreements not to compete member from Coventry.

[Representative Michael Marcotte (Coventry)]: Thank you, madam speaker. First, I wanna thank you and thank the body for their patience, as we continued to delay action on h two zero five over the last couple of weeks. The amendment that is proposed by the member from Burlington has been difficult for your house committee on commerce and economic development because we are not the policy expert on teacher contracts. I would say that myself and the vice chair and the other member from Burlington who is on the committee, House Commerce Committee, have gotten somewhat up to speed on it. But, unfortunately, has we, has has our legislative council has, so aptly said that we're in a Gordian knot. So when we pull on one side, we tighten a knot on the other, and we just can't get it undone. We've been talking with all the the all of the parties involved, and we can't get to, at this point, can't get to a resolution. And I believe that it will take us a lot longer to continue to work and and negotiate. And so with that, madam speaker, I would move that we recommit h two zero five back to committee.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: A member from Coventry moves that h two zero five be recommitted to the committee on commerce and economic development. Are you ready for the question? Member from Burlington.

[Unidentified Representative (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I'm gonna start by just expressing my sincere gratitude to your committee on commerce and economic development, and I know that this is a can of worms that they did not anticipate opening in front of them and on their laps. That being said, I'm gonna vote no to this motion. I am a huge fan of H two zero five and I've told this to the committee. A huge fan of banning non complete, non compete agreements across all worker sectors.

[Representative Eric Maguire (Rutland City)]: And

[Unidentified Representative (Burlington)]: the source of my amendment was based in a fundamental belief that those protections against non compete agreements should extend to all Vermont workers.

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

[Representative John L. Bartholomew (Hartland)]: It's kind of the same one I made before. The motion is to recommit to committee, I'm not debating the bill at this point.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the Reese has will the body stand at ease for a moment? Members with the house, please come to order. Member from Heartland, I find your point of order well taken. House rule 65 provides that motion to recommit is not debatable. Yes. The question on the floor, the member from Coventry moves that h two zero five be recommitted to the committee on commerce and economic development. Are you ready for the question? Member from s extension. Thank you, madam.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: Does this work? Yes. It's a very good.

[Representative David Yacovone (Morristown)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I appreciate the member from Coffin Tree's, report and just want to share my support for this

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: motion. Are you ready for the question? 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 recommitted h two zero five to the committee on commerce and economic development. Members, that completes the orders of the day. Are there any announcements? Member from Coventry.

[Representative Michael Marcotte (Coventry)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I hope you and everyone will join me in wishing a happy anniversary to and her husband to the member from Jericho.

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

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are there any other announcements? Member from nope. The chair has two announcements. If your committee is voting out a bill to meet crossover today and you are the bill reporter, please submit your committee report to the clerk's office as soon as possible and be sure to do so before you leave today and get confirmation that it made it to the calendar. Second announcement, members earlier today, the committee on ways and means reported favorably on house bill two ninety four, which is an act relating to commission commissary and telecommunications prices and state correctional facilities and fair compensation for incarcerated incarcerated labor. Carrying an appropriation, the bill is referred to the committee on appropriations pending its notice on the notice calendar. Are there any further announcements? Seeing none. Member from Pulteney. Can you please offer us a motion to adjourn until Tuesday, 03/17/2026 at 10AM?

[Unidentified Representative(s) (diarization mix)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion this body stand and adjournment until Tuesday, 03/17/2026 at 10AM.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Pulteney moves that we adjourn until Tuesday, 03/17/2026 at 10AM. 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.