Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Members we are picking up where we left off with house bill six zero six which is a bill related to firearm procedures. Member from South Burlington.

[Representative Bridget Burkhardt (South Burlington)]: Madam Speaker, I'd just like to clarify, when we take up, section three first that it's section three along with any effective date related to section three.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So as a reminder then members, the member from South Burlington has asked that we divide the questions. So we take up section three first and that means also its applicable effective dates. So the question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary in section three and its applicable effective dates? Are you ready for the question? Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam speaker, I rise because I'd like to offer just a few clarifications on this whole issue. It's certainly a topic that mental health that's always been strong interest and I've been involved in for many years. And the first thing I want to talk about is implicit bias. And that's a real thing. Whenever you have a marginalized group, you're likely to find implicit bias which is very specifically bias that you're not aware of. That's why it's implicit. Something maybe things you heard, what you grew up with leads you to biases that may not be founded at all. And that's often very true with mental health. And I would suggest that there is a piece, an aspect of this that we're discussing today that does raise the question of implicit bias, and that's why is mental health one of the issues being raised when well, it said it's one of the things that's already illegal federally, but there are a number of other federal prohibitions for other reasons that Vermont has not adopted, has not picked up on, and said we ought to do this too. So I think it's something we do need to always keep in mind, how we can be influenced by that. And I must say that for people for whom alarm bells kind of went off because of the topic, I thank them for being alert and aware of that. But I think there is also a difference between discrimination that's based on something specific that isn't really about the group or the class versus something that's a very wide swath and takes in everyone who's a part of that group. Generally speaking, if you ask many of my constituents, particularly if they are in support of gun restrictions, they would say, I'm somebody who never votes for them. And that's not entirely true, but I have felt a strict rule myself that ones that are a broad based law that impact a lot of rights just to get at a few people who represent the real threat we're concerned about, that that isn't something I support. There are some really good examples, and Vermont has one in terms of its law regarding violent crime. Some good examples of making that distinction between a lot of people and the specific people of concern. Because the federal ban related to crime is anyone who has committed a crime for which the punishment is longer than one year has a permanent ban against gun ownership. Our list is a list of violent crimes only. That's a huge distinction because a violent crime is something that would certainly indicate if you've been convicted of a violent crime that you have a degree of propensity to violence that makes it of concern for you to have a gun. We also have passed an IRPA law, emergency. I know what it is, and I'm drawing a blank. Rights emergency risk protection order. And, again, that's based on a demonstration, of actual danger, not something hypothetical. This particular part of this bill is not targeting mental illness. It's targeting a court found dangerousness. Just as just as when we target violent crimes, not all crimes. This is targeting a very tiny number of people with a mental illness who have been found by a court to have a mental illness that's what's causing specific dangerous tendencies. Unlike federal law, which simply runs it across the spectrum of anyone who's ever been committed by a court on a mental health grounds is permanently loses their their rights to own a gun. But it's important to understand exactly what laws we're discussing here in our Vermont law. Because first of all, one of the most important things is these have to do with petitions that cannot be brought against somebody who is voluntarily seeking treatment. Start and finish, through and through, we are beginning with that small subgroup of people who for whatever reason, because they've had treatment before and they didn't feel it was effective, because they're afraid of the treatments, because they don't believe they need it, They are refusing treatment and the due process is there to protect their rights and an order is found by a judge based on not just having a mental illness but very specific findings. He or she has inflicted or attempted to inflict bodily harm on another, or by his or her threats of actions has placed others in reasonable fear of physical harm, or by actions or inactions has presented a danger to persons in his or her care, and then suicidal actions or threats. So these are very specific situations, and for a person who does not want to seek help. That's really important to make that distinction, but more than anything is the distinction that in most cases it is very short term. It is only for the actual time in which a person has been found by a court to be a danger. It's not for everyone in a large category. The wording of the statute is a little bit, not necessarily completely clear. But if you look at the wording in terms of the different sub parts, there are several that say there are three categories. There's the small I, the double small I, and the triple small I. And the first one says a person who has been found by the court to be a person in need of treatment. Person in need of treatment is simply the definition that I read to you a moment ago. It means that a person has been found to have a mental illness and is a danger. It's not just somebody who needs treatment. But the first one is has been found. And the second two say is the subject of. The third one is the subject of. The reason that's so important is because being a subject of simply means in the moment you are a subject of it. So right now, in this moment, when you are being treated to address the current status of your mental illness, you can't be you can't be possessing a gun. But when that order ends because you are no longer the state is not seeking to continue it, you are no longer in that category, it terminates unlike federal law where it lives forever. There are only two exceptions to that termination, and they are both tied directly to what would happen if in fact you were out on the street and somebody who's committing a crime. That is if it's been brought if the if the petition's been brought because of a crime and the crime is one for which you would lose your rights in ordinary circumstances, you're found not guilty because of insanity, but not guilty by reason of insanity includes the requirement of a finding that the acts were actually committed. So in other words, you have been found by a court to have committed those acts, which for any other person, because it's a violent crime, would result in the loss of gun rights. The second one, likewise, talks about being incompetent to stand trial for a specific offense. Those offenses are the three in the statute right above that under existing law, if a person has a charge against them pending, not a conviction, but just a charge against them pending, they lose their right to possession a weapon. This brings a parity to that, that a person in any circumstance, where those specific charges are pending, while those charges are pending, cannot be in possession of a weapon. One of the things I've heard discussed has been about something called a non hospitalization order. Where you're found to have a mental illness, be at risk, but you're not required to be hospitalized. You're getting your treatment elsewhere. And people have said, well, why would you not be allowed to have a gun then? And what I want to read to you is the definition of what's called a person in need of further treatment. And that is a person who is receiving adequate treatment, but who, if such treatment is discontinued, presents a substantial probability that in the near future his or her condition will deteriorate, and he or she will become a person in need of treatment. In other words, they're not fully stable yet, very rapidly something could fall apart, and they would become that level of danger that I think most of us would agree would be appropriate that a person should not be carrying a weapon. Ultimately, even for those who committed a crime or is charged with a crime, has been convicted of a crime, that for any other person would mean a permanent loss of rights. For someone whose cause of the crime was also their mental illness, they can regain their rights, by presenting evidence of recovery. And I do want to stay just for a moment on the topic of recovery, because it's the fundamental difference between what federal law does and what Vermont is proposing to do here. Federal law does not recognize that a person can recover from mental illness. This law does. The loss of rights is very short term and very specific to the danger, exactly the same way as our emergency risk protection orders do. Short time during an immediate threat. We have learned a whole lot in the decades, in the recent decades, and certainly since the federal law was passed about the fact that mental health, mental illness does recover, that one is not necessarily mental ill forever. Man and Seeker, I've spoken about this before, maybe not in the same level of detail, but one of the reasons that I am such a strong advocate for mental health rights is my own experience. Between 1994 and 2001, I was hospitalized seven different times, one of them for six weeks. None of those were involuntary, but otherwise I would have fit within the criteria if I were not willing. On top of that, madam speaker, during that time, on one occasion, I was charged with a crime. It was not prosecuted because I was found to have committed the crime under the influence of a psychotic break. I know a lot about these issues. I fight for the rights of people with a mental illness all the time. I helped in crafting this language because I think in writing it in this way, we are not discriminating against people with a mental illness. We are only targeting people who are a current danger to other people. It is short term for as long as that danger exists. And it is only if somebody is not seeking treatment on their own to address that same dangerousness. So Madam Speaker I support this part of the bill and I encourage support for it.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary in section three and its effective dates. I've been asked for clarification just to remind members a yes vote. A yes vote approves this language and keeps it in the bill. A no vote removes section three and its effective dates. Again, the question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary in section three and its effective dates? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill with section three. Now the question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary and the remainder of the committee record? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Now 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. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Members, just an update on bill order. So now we will turn to the current on order under new business, third reading starting with house bill three eighty five. At this time my understanding is the only change is in order is with house bill five thirty six, that needs a little bit more time so we're going to move that to the end of the calendar. So with that, we will now take up House Bill three eighty five which is an act relating to remedies and protections for victims of coerced debt. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H three eighty five, an act relating to remedies and protections for victims of coerced debt.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Up next is house bill five fifty six which is an act relating to exceptions to the applicability of the state minimum wage. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H five fifty six. A act relating to exceptions to applicability of state minimum wage.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Now we'll turn to house bill five fifty nine which is an act relating to the parole board. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Page five fifty nine, an act relating to the parole board.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have passed the bill. Up next is house bill seven twenty three, which is an act relating to posting of land. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Page seven twenty three, an act relating to posting of land.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Up next is house bill seven fifty seven which is an act relating to manufactured homes and limited equity cooperatives. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H seven five seven, an act relating to manufactured homes and limited equity cooperatives.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Up next is house bill eight fourteen which is an act relating to neurological rights and the use of artificial intelligence technology in health and human services. Prior to third reading, the member from Burlington, representative Gina offers an amendment to the bill that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Burlington.

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, yesterday we heard concerns from a member about the lack of a definition for neurotechnology in h eight fourteen. So we, we we have an amendment here before you today to consider to address those concerns. Madam speaker, may I quote from the genealogy of morals by Friedrich Nietzsche?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Only that which has no history is definable. Nietzsche's assertion here suggests that any concept with a functional history defies a singular definition because it represents a synthesis of various often conflicting purposes. If we apply this to AI, we see a field that has transitioned from symbolic logic to statistical learning now to generative AI and and creative artificial intelligence, which has made a fixed definition difficult to to narrow down. Neurotechnology is following a similar trajectory. Its identity is is is switching between clinical tool and wellness device and personal enhancement opportunity. So so because these technologies are difficult to precisely define, Or they are be they they're dine they are shaped by dynamic forces, basically. And they our social, economic, ethical, political struggles are gonna be changing the definition over time. And so because these these concepts are actively accruing history and don't have a long history yet to refer to, we need to be flexible in our definitions. And so is a compromise with the concerns of the member? The amendment here in for age eight fourteen, it would, in section four, responsible and ethical use of artificial intelligence in health care, human services, and education, report in subsection b, it would strike out subdivision one a in its entirety and insert a new subdivision one a, protections for neurological rights, protections related to neurotechnologies, and proposed definitions for relevant terminology. What this language change does is it asks the advisory council to include in their report suggested definitions for neurotechnology, artificial intelligence, or any other terminology that they come up within their investigation. So this amendment would address the members concerns and more and would accurately reflect the the nature of the struggle of defining these emerging concepts. Madam speaker, the your house oh, I so I'm the reporter of bill and of the amendment. So would it be in order for me to switch roles, or should I sit down and get back up?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may continue.

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, your house health care committee heard the amendment from the member from Burlington, and on a vote of eleven zero zero found it favorable, and we ask the body support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Burlington? Are you ready for the question, member from Northfield?

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: I just wanna thank the member and the committee, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Burlington? 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. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H814, an act relating to neurological rights and the use of artificial intelligence technology in health and human services.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? Member from Williston.

[Representative Erin Brady (Williston)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. And I just wanted to rise to thank the committee again for their work and the member from Burlington for bringing this idea forward. I think it's, the terms that the member was just using and describing are possibly quite possibly terms that many people in this room have never even heard, and I think that, says a little bit about the the attempt at future proofing that's, captured by this bill. And I really appreciate that in a time when techno technological developments are moving so incredibly fast and laws are, struggling to keep up or in some cases not even trying to keep up. And so I just wanted to again thank the committee and though I I had a great conversation with the member, did not bring forward an amendment. I I I urge all of us to be considering, independence in, all things as we consider advisory council membership and and other types of membership that, should be ever aware of, the amount of money that's involved in in this in in big tech and AI development and and just how easy it is for, for for that amount of money to buy a whole lot of influence, and sometimes it's quite covert. And so perhaps there will be an opportunity in the future for us to take a look at how to better ensure the independence of the folks who are on these advisory councils as we seek to keep pace or catch up to technology.

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

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I wanna thank, the members who expressed concerns about the importance of maintaining or or managing any conflict of interests on on boards and commissions, especially around subjects of such significance as the one before us today. There are existing guidelines, around ethical behavior and conflicts of interest. However, the member raises a good point that money buys power, and maybe this this bill before us isn't the vehicle, but it needs to stay in the conscience of this body as we move forward to make sure that we are protecting the public from undue influence. So I thank the member for raising those concerns.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Up next is House Bill eight sixteen which is an act relating to regulating the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of mental health services. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H eight sixteen. An act relating to regulating the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of mental health services. The

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Now we'll turn to house bill nine twenty seven which is an act relating to technical corrections for the twenty twenty six legislative session. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H nine twenty seven, an act relating to technical corrections for the 2026 legislative session.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Up next is House Bill nine thirty which is an act relating to addressing the prevention preventing chronic absenteeism. The bill was introduced by the committee on education. Member from Manchester, representative Hunter will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H nine thirty. An act relating to addressing and preventing chronic absenteeism.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Manchester.

[Representative Robert Hunter (Manchester)]: Madam speaker, h nine thirty addresses a national problem in our schools, chronic absenteeism. According to the AOE, absenteeism has been directly tied to learning outcomes in numerous studies. When assessing significant test score declines nationwide from pre to post pandemic. The US Council of Economic Advisors quantified in 2023 that absenteeism explained sixteen to forty five percent of the declines in test scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, also known as the nation's report card after controlling for other variables. In The US chronic absenteeism before the pandemic was at about thirteen to fifteen percent of students. Post pandemic, that number shot up to twenty eight percent and has since leveled off at twenty four percent. In Vermont chronic absenteeism is at about twenty five percent. More to the point, the data have demonstrated that the more years a child was chronically absent in the earliest years, pre K, kindergarten and first grade, the more at risk they became for needing a reading intervention by the end of second grade and worse by high school, a student who is chronically absent any year between grades eight and twelve is more than seven times likely to drop out than their peer who was not chronically absent. We should all be concerned. There are many reasons for students missing school, both out of school factors and in school factors. But what we know and what is at stake is that school is a place where students don't just learn about science and math and literature and history. It is a place where they learn how to think, how to use logic to solve problems, how to build relationships, where they learn empathy, where they are fed, where there are consistent adult role models willing to take them and their development seriously. So much goes on in schools during the school day that it's too long of a list, but I'm sure that any of us educators would love to bend your ear at lunch. H nine thirty is an AOE bill. Like many other states, it reflects Vermont's effort to get our own kids back in the classrooms. It also represents a shift in mindset. This mindset shift is key to advancing state level strategies which decenter compliance as a primary outcome and more deeply consider the root causes behind absenteeism and the impact of chronic absenteeism on communities rather than on individuals. This bill is necessary, sensitive and straightforward. I will briefly summarize the sections. You can follow along on page eleven forty two of today's calendar. Subsection eleven twenty of VSA chapter 25 is new statute. It adds definitions to this chapter including for the terms absence, chronic absenteeism, excused absence, parent or guardian, truancy and unexcused absence. You might be wondering why there has to be definitions for these words but consistency is going to be really important across the state. So, we'll see that here. Subsection eleven twenty one amends current law. This is compulsory attendance law. Amendments update the terms a person having control to parent or guarding. Adding a modifier that requires medical recommendation for a student to be deemed mentally or physically unable to attend school. Adding references to head of school for approved independent school as a person with authority to excuse an absence in alignment with other amendments in this bill. Subsection eleven twenty two, current law amended. This section requires parents or guardians of students under the age of six and over the age of 16 who are enrolled in school to ensure that the student actually attends. The same requirements of students between the ages of six and 16. Subsection eleven twenty three, current law amended. This section lists what types of absences may be excused by a superintendent or head of school. Subsection eleven twenty four is new statute. It requires the AOE to develop a model policy on the prevention of chronic absenteeism and truancy, which will include a template for documentation of actions taken according to the policy to address the absence, the truancy protocol and a template for standard documentation to provide to parents. It also requires school districts and approved independent schools to adopt policies at least as stringent as the model policy. Subsection eleven twenty six is current law amended. This requires principals and heads of school at approved independent schools to notify superintendents of any student who accumulates 20 or more unexcused absences within the last one hundred and seventy five consecutive attendance days. The superintendent is then required to notify the truant officer and the DCF. Subsection eleven twenty seven is current law amended. In this section, if the truant officer finds that a student's absences are not excusable, the officer is required to give written notice to the parent and or guardian. If the parent guardian continues to fail without legal excuse to cause the student to attend school, the truant officer must enter a complaint to the state's attorney's office in the County in which they're located. The state's attorney then may either criminally prosecute the parent or guardian or file a CHINS petition or both. A criminal prosecution under this section is a misdemeanor and the penalty is a fine of not more than $1,000 which is the same as current law. Subsection eleven twenty eight has been repealed. Subsection eleven twenty nine, current law amended. The change here is only to use the term parent or guardian to remain consistent in the terms usage throughout. 16 VSA subsection eleven sixty two is amended and goes on to say that in the case of a suspension or expulsion, a school may provide access to alternative education such as tutoring, instructional materials and assignments. Section three outlines the implementation phase of the program. It requires AOE to submit a written update on progress of the model policy by 03/15/2027 about a year right from now, along with the notification templates. It requires AOE to publish the model policy by 07/01/2027 and requires school boards and approved independent schools to adopt and implement policies on or before 07/01/2028. Section four is repealed. Section five is about those in home study. This section requires AOE to submit a written report to the house and Senate committees on education with recommendations for updates to Vermont's home study program law to improve oversight and ensure home study participants compliance with attendance requirements. We listened to a lot of witnesses including school counseling directors, school counselors Central Vermont Career Center, superintendents of Addison Central of Montpelier Roxbury School District, Deputy Chief of Accountability Assessment and Continuous Improvement Agency of Education, Juvenile Justice Director, Department for Children and Families, Community Liaison, Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools, staff attorneys, agency of education, executive director, Vermont superintendents association, senior executive director, Vermont principals association, safe and healthy schools division director, agency of education, a representative from Vermont independent schools association, the deputy commissioner family services division, department for children and families, K two school counselor from St. Albans and legislative council. The committee passed this bill eleven zero and asks for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam speaker, I have just one brief clarifying question if I may interrogate the member.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member for Manchester is interrogated.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam speaker, I'm looking at section eleven twenty three, beginning on the bottom of page four of the bill. And that section is listing it's added to the designee of the head of school of an independent approved independent school along with public school, long list of what approved absences, and that it ends with number 12 as being other reasons not specified in one through 11. But then when we get to Section B, it appears to be a special clause only for the head of school of an independent school for a specific kind of excuse absence, which it seems to me would be covered by number 12, is other reasons. So I'm wondering why there's this special subsection for approved independent schools and why that wouldn't simply be covered under the earlier section.

[Representative Robert Hunter (Manchester)]: Thank you, madam speaker. As I'm reading the bill right now, the superintendent or designee of the head of school for an approved independent school or designee, I think it's a little confusing there, superintendent or a designee or the head of school for an approved independent school. So, believe that it's just a little confusing with the strike out there that it's actually the superintendent of public schools or their designee. There might be a comma after designee or the head of school for an approved independent school or designee. Does that make sense?

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: I thank the member, madam speaker. I think that's right. It's probably the the wording of the previous one said superintendent of a public school, and so that's what, that's what threw me off there. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Member from West Windsor.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wondered if I could inquire, of the presenter of the bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Manchester is interrogated.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you. Did the committee take any testimony on the role of hazing, harassment, and bullying in chronic absenteeism?

[Representative Robert Hunter (Manchester)]: I thank the member for the question. Actually, that's a great question. In the policy brief from the AOE, I mentioned that there were many factors for chronic absenteeism,

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: many

[Representative Robert Hunter (Manchester)]: of them in school factors and some of those were hazing, harassment, bullying, and many factors outside of school as well. We did not specifically take testimony on that, but I wanted to say that it is most definitely something that the agency is thinking of and something that they're thinking of in regard to making a kinder, gentler policy to get kids back to school rather than just a punitive, approach.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Madam Speaker, are you aware that the twenty twenty three task force on the, I can't remember the name of it. Hazing, harassment, and bullying prevention task force, which was created by the yield bill of 2023. The task force's report, which was reported to the, committee in 2024 listed among, some of its recommendations, the forgiveness of chronic absenteeism in the time in, as a result of hazing, harassment, and bullying. By not listing hazing, harassment, and bullying among the possibilities in this list, it makes it so that local school boards may not adapt.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Barrytown?

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Yes. There is a question. Yep.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members, there is a point of order, and oh, I heard from the member there is a response coming. I would caution the member, to ensure that you're getting to your question. The floor is yours.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you madam speaker. With the, list of possible reasons for chronic absenteeism as it is written in this bill? Does that list preclude local boards from adjusting their local school boards from adjusting their hazing, harassment, and bullying policy to allow for absenteeism due to hazing, harassment, and bullying? That is my question. Thank you.

[Representative Robert Hunter (Manchester)]: That's a good question, and I don't I don't see any reason why they couldn't include that in their own model policy.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I I'd like to reiterate the question just to to, because it is a legal question. My question is the way that this bill is written, because it enumerates the the allowable reasons for chronic absenteeism, does it preclude a school board for from creating a policy that is outside of this

[Representative Robert Hunter (Manchester)]: potential agency along with help from many partners in the state will come up with a model policy. After that,

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: school boards I'm

[Representative Robert Hunter (Manchester)]: can either take up that policy or develop their own. So the way I'm reading it, they certainly have that latitude.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Okay. Thank you Madam Speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Up next is House Bill 171 which is an act relating to attorney general into law enforcement officers use of a firearm. The bill was referred to the committee on judiciary which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from West Rutland, representative Burditt will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H one seventy one, an act relating to attorney general investigations into a law enforcement officer's use of a firearm.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from West Rutland.

[Representative Thomas Burditt (West Rutland)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I guess I wasn't ready for you to call on me. I am prepared somewhat, but I just wasn't ready for the call. Anyway, the first thing I wanna say, Madam Speaker, is I wanna thank my committee, the House Judiciary Committee for keeping this bill alive. When I first brought this forward, I was asked to bring it forward by a member of the Rutland City Police Department. And the reason was that they had an officer that was involved in a shooting, you know, and he had been behind the desk for over a year. And the concern was, you know, whether somebody is gonna be charged or not charged, that it was a bit long for somebody to be there. And we heard some testimony from a member of the Burlington Police Department that was going through the same thing and just incredible. When an individual goes through in that situation, whether they're worrying about their job, whether they're worrying about their family, and a host of other issues. But when I first brought this bill forward, it looks nothing like it did now with the amendment. And basically, it was my ignorance on how to go forward with it, that's kind of why I thank the judiciary committee because the original bill had timelines that the attorney general had to abide by as far as, you know, clearing these cases or bringing charges. And it turned out that there's no other state in the country that does it by timelines. Do it by protocol. With that, Madam Speaker, the bill is on page eleven forty two of today's calendar, and it's just the main part of it's just a couple paragraphs long, and it's the general assembly finds it is the best interest of victims and law enforcement officers to efficiently and thoroughly conduct independent investigations of any officer involved shooting, OIS, in Vermont. It is the intent of the General Assembly to facilitate cooperation amongst the entities responsible for investigating an officer involved shooting. So there's a well understood protocol for addressing an OIS that instills public trust in such investigations and resolves investigations in a timely manner like I talked about to provide certainty to all parties involved. The Attorney General's Office, the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, the Department of Public Safety, and the Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police shall work collaboratively to identify a protocol and best practices for independent investigations. And I have to say everybody came together on this. You know, that list I just mentioned, and I really want to give an extra shout out to the Attorney General's office, you know, for where they ended up on this bill and the support I feel that we got on it. And with that said, right now, the name of the bill is an act relating to attorney general investigations into a law enforcement officer's use of a firearm. And upon the passage here in the house, hope anyway, an act it's gonna be changing to an act relating to criminal justice agency protocols for an officer involved shooting. And and with that, madam speaker, the the vote in committee was ten zero one. And witnesses we heard from was the team lead legislative council, office of legislative council, State Lodge President, Fraternal Order of Police, Director of Policy and Legislative Affairs, Attorney General's Office, General Counsel, Department of Public Safety, and Legislative Policy and Records Attorney, department of state's attorneys and sheriffs, and your house judiciary committee would certainly appreciate your support. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And third reading is ordered. Members now we'll turn to 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. 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 Randolph, representative Cooper, will speak for the committee and affecting the revenue of the state. The bill was then referred to the committee on ways and means which recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on government operations and military and military affairs. The member from Fairhaven, representative Canfield, will speak for that committee. And then carrying an appropriation, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations which also recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on government operations and military affairs. The member from Saint Albans Town, representative Dickinson will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Age five nineteen. 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.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Randolph.

[Representative Jonathan Cooper (Randolph)]: There are three municipalities that joined, the state employee retirement system years ago. Randolph is one of them, Bethel and Danville are the others. Of the three Randolph is the only operating a police department. The employees of these municipalities are part of plan f, which requires thirty years of service retire. All other law enforcement retirement plans managed by the state's treasurer's office require twenty years of service to get the maximum benefit. As you could guess, this poses considerable challenges to officer recruitment as well as retention of unlikely recruits for the town of Randolph. H519 allows law enforcement employees from any of the three participating municipalities to join plan G, so as to make retirement requirements consistent across all member towns. It allows current employees a one time opportunity to transition to plan G. Section one, and you can turn to page eleven forty four of the house calendar to follow along. We'll amend section one will amend three BSA subsection four fifty five, which covers the definitions for title three chapter 16 governing the Vermont employees retirement system. This section amends the definition of group G member and normal retirement date to include individuals employed by a municipality participating in the Vermont States excuse me, in the Vermont Employees Retirement System that have attained a level two or level three law enforcement officer certification from the Vermont Criminal Justice Council and are required to perform law enforcement duties as a primary function of their employment. So, that's police officers. The definition of normal retirement date is amended to include the appropriate retirement dates for these employees depending on when the individual began employment. The normal retirement date will align with other members of group G. Section two will amend three VSA subsection four fifty nine governing the calculation of a normal retirement allowance. The amendments to this section will simply add in reference to the new employees that were added into the definitions of section one to provide the individual with a normal retirement calculation. Section three will amend three VSA subsection four eighty nine. Currently the language in subsection four eighty nine defaults for employees of a political subdivision who are participating in the state system that those employees are members of group f with limited exceptions. This amendment will add in language to provide that these municipal law enforcement employees will be members of group G. Section four adds session law to provide a one time irrevocable election of the current employees who are contemplating moving to group g to remain in group f if the employee chooses. When moving employees from one group membership to another, the general assembly has provided those employees who are employed at the time of the transition with a one time option of moving or remaining in the individual's current group. This section outlines the process of that one time election. For these employees who are currently employed, they will have until 12/01/2026 to make a one time irrevocable election to move to group G or remain in group F. All new employees after 01/01/2027 would be enrolled in group g and would not have the election. So this is only for those currently employed to have the option of moving into group g or staying. For employees employed between 12/01/2026 and 01/01/2027, those individuals would have thirty days to decide their determination of which group to belong to, either group G or group F. The committee vote was nine zero two favorable. This bill has no fiscal impact. Section five is the effective date, 07/01/2026. We heard from a handful of witnesses. The other member from Randolph, the bill sponsor, also a Randolph Selectman, the deputy state treasurer, the state treasurer's council, the police chief in Randolph, the Randolph town manager, Randolph select board chair, and, of course, ledge council. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on ways and means, member from Fair Haven.

[Representative Bridget Burkhardt (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, the fiscal note on page five nineteen can be found on the bill page on the GA site as well as on the House Ways and Means website. Your committee on Ways and Means did consider H519 and we found that municipalities that participate in the Vermont State Employees Retirement System pay for the employer's share of pension costs for their employees. These costs are not paid by state government. This bill as recommended is expected to have a de minimis impact on the VISRS retirement system and no impact on state revenues. We heard from associate finance officer from joint fiscal office as well as legislative counsel from the office of legislative counsel.

[Representative William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: On a vote of eleven zero zero, we recommend that five nineteen h five nineteen ought to pass.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, the member from Saint Alvinstown.

[Representative Eileen Dickinson (St. Albans Town)]: Thank you, madam speaker. This bill has no fiscal cost to the state and appropriates no funds. The towns that participate in vCERs pay for the employer's share of the pension cost of their members and the active members in group g pay for the higher cost of the group g benefit through a higher contribution rate than they would otherwise pay if they were Group F. This is also a very small group of employees who are in similar occupations to other members of Group G, so shifting them into Group G will not have any significant impact on the actuarial assumptions of the pension system. The bill also has no impact on OPEB which is the retire health retiree health care for the state because these municipal employees are not part of that system. The appropriations bill voted eleven zero zero to approve the bill and we asked for the body's support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Now the question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on government operations and military affairs? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Just a reminder to members that May, is at the end of our calendar for today and please, note there is an amendment coming on that. So with that we will move to House Bill five thirty seven which is an act relating to the right to grow vegetable gardens. Member from Shaftesbury.

[Representative David Durfee (Shaftsbury)]: Madam speaker, I move that action on h five thirty seven be postponed for one legislative day.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Shaftesbury Shapsbury moves that we postpone action on house bill five thirty seven for one legislative day. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have postponed action on house bill five thirty seven for one legislative day. Now we'll take up house bill five fifty which is an act relating to gender equity within Vermont's correctional facilities. The bill was referred to the committee on corrections and institutions which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Barrytown, representative Galfetti will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H five fifty, an act relating to gender equity within Vermont's correctional facilities.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Barrytown.

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Before walking through the bill itself, I want to briefly explain how I came to support this legislation. Earlier this session, our committee heard testimony from a formerly incarcerated Vermonter. Our fellow rep from Burlington introduced her today. And when she testified before our committee, she spoke about her experience navigating incarceration as a transgendered woman. Her testimony was thoughtful, sincere, and courageous. It described not only personal hardship, but also areas where our systems lack clarity and consistency. Following that testimony, I continued conversations with her so that I could better understand the realities faced by individuals whose identities do not fit neatly into the binary framework our correctional system was originally designed around. Our correctional facilities were built and structured around a traditional male female classification system. That reality still shapes how facilities operate today. At the same time, we know that some individuals in our custody identify as transgender, gender diverse, or intersex. This legislation is an attempt to bring clarity, dignity, and structure into how our system addresses those situations while recognizing the operational realities of correctional facilities. I also want to emphasize something clearly. This bill is not radical. Much of what this legislation does is codify structured decision making that the Department of Corrections already practices while strengthening transparency, consistency, and legislative oversight. The bill was developed collaboratively with the Department of Corrections and I want to express my appreciation to the department for their willingness to work closely with our committee throughout this process. It is also important to note that this bill maintains a clear commitment to the safety and security of everyone who lives or works in our correctional facilities. I would not support this legislation if I believed it placed cisgendered women or any other incarcerated individuals at risk. Our work here has been guided by two commitments. One, ensuring dignity and respect for individuals who are transgender, gender diverse, or intersex. And two, ensuring the safety and security of all individuals under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections. I also wanna be clear on a few on what this bill does and does not do. This bill does not automatically place individuals in housing based solely on gender identity. It does not remove the Department of Corrections authority to make safety based decisions or require placements that create risks for other incarcerated individuals. And it does not prevent the reassessment of placement decisions if safety concerns arise. All decisions about searches, housing and care remain individualized and grounded in safety considerations. This bill does require respectful identification and interaction with incarcerated individuals, establish clear procedures governing searches, create structured review processes for housing placement decisions. It calls for a review of medical healthcare best practices. It codifies Vermont's adherence to the prison rape elimination act standards, and it also will provide ongoing legislative oversight through reporting requirements. Broadly speaking, this legislation codifies best practices in several key areas, respectful identification of individuals, search procedures within correctional settings, housing placement determinations, and Vermont's commitment to the prison rape elimination act. I will now briefly walk through each section of the bill, which can be found on page eleven fifty six of today's house calendar and on the legislative website. Section one, intent. Section one establish establishes the legislative intent behind the bill. It recognizes that gender identity is a deeply personal and individualized experience. Individuals may navigate their identity in many different ways, and there is no single prescriptive path. This section also acknowledges an important reality. Vermont's correctional system was built within a traditional gender binary framework. The intent of the bill is to ensure that individuals who are transgender, gender diverse, or intersex are treated with dignity and respect while operating within the structural realities of our correctional system. Section two, definitions. Section two adds definitions within title 28 of Vermont statute. It is important to note that these definitions apply only within title 28, which governs corrections and do not automatically expand across Vermont law. Some of these definitions already exist elsewhere in Vermont statute, others align with existing Department of Corrections policy, and in some cases with federal definitions used within the Prison Rape Elimination Act. The definition of gender diverse, for example, reflects language that is already commonly used in correctional policy in the PREA guidance. These definitions ensure that correctional staff have clear statutory language to guide implementation. Section three, gender identification and non nondiscrimination. Section three creates a new section of statute 28 b s a subsection one twenty nine addressing gender identification and nondiscrimination. This section governs how the department interacts with individuals who are transgender, gender diverse or intersex. Key elements include an intake process that allows individuals to identify their gender identity, optional disclosure of pronouns and honorifics, the ability to express preferences regarding the gender or of staff conducting searches, gender responsive training requirements for staff. The goal of this section is to ensure that respect for identity and dignity informs daily interactions within correctional settings. Section four, searches. Section four creates 28 BSA subsection one thirty which establishes statutory guide guidance for searches involving transgender, gender diverse or intersex individuals. Key provisions include prohibiting searches conducted solely determined to determine genital status requiring individualized consideration of search requests, allowing the department to override a request if safety or security risks exists. These provisions align closely with the PREA standards governing searches and correctional facilities. And section 10 of the bill requires the Department of Corrections to submit an updated search policy to the joint legislative justice oversight committee. That policy will allow the legislature to review how these statutory standards are implemented operationally. Section five, classification and housing placement. Section five creates 28 VSA subsection seven zero one C governing classification and housing placement determination. This section reflects extensive collaboration with the Department of Corrections. And I want to once again express our gratitude for their partnership in developing this framework. Housing placement is one of the most complex aspects of correctional management. This section seeks to maintain dignity for transgender, gender diverse and intersex inmates while ensuring that the safety and security of everyone in the facility is paramount. Several features help maintain that balance. Housing decisions must be made through a multidisciplinary review process, include consultation with medical and mental health professionals, and be based on objective considerations of health, safety, and security. An individual's request regarding housing placement must be given serious consideration, but the department may decline that request if it creates an unreasonable risk to safety or security. The department must also provide written documentation explaining the reasoning when a placement request cannot be accommodated. This ensures transparency and accountability in the decision making process. The department shall make the same determination to place folks out of state. The statute also allows housing decisions to be revisited and reassessed, particularly if safety concerns arise or if an inmate requests reconsideration. Section six, the Prison Rape Elimination Act Standards. Section six creates 28 VSA subsection eight twenty, which codifies Vermont's adherence to the Prison Rape Elimination Act National Standards. Establishes nationally recognized best practices for preventing, detecting and responding to sexual abuse in correctional facilities. Recent federal developments have raised concerned about whether PREA standards may continue to be consistently enforced at national level. By incorporating the PREA standards into Vermont statute as they existed on 01/01/2024, the legislation ensures that Vermont remains aligned with those protections regardless of federal changes. This section incorporates the full range of PREA requirements including staff training, reporting procedures, investigation protocols, victim support services, monitoring and oversight mechanisms. Section seven, eight and nine are technical adjustments to existing statute. These updates simply cross reference with Vermont law to reflect the updated numbering of definitions in title 28. These sections do not create new policy. Section 10 is the search policy review and requires the Department of Corrections to submit a revised search policy to the joint legislative justice oversight committee. This provides an opportunity for the legislature to review how statutory search provisions are implemented in practice. Section 11 is PREA reporting and it establishes an ongoing reporting requirement related to PREA standards. This section ensures that if the federal PREA standards change in the future, the legislature will receive a report identifying those changes and their implications for Vermont. This creates an ongoing feedback mechanism so Vermont can respond appropriately if federal standards shift. Section 12, gender affirming care review. Section 12 directs the joint legislative justice oversight committee to review current practices related to gender affirming healthcare and correctional settings. This review will examine best practices and recommend any future statutory language that may be appropriate. This ensures that Vermont continues to evaluate medical standards thoughtfully and deliberately. Section 13 establishes the bill's effective date as 07/01/2026. We took testimony from multiple department heads at DOC, the commissioner of DOC, representatives of the defender general's office, representatives from the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, a formerly incarcerated individual, representatives from Well Path, the facility's medical contractor, and legislative council. The committee voted nine two zero to advance this legislation. In closing, this legislation reflects careful collaboration between the legislature, the Department of Corrections, and the individuals who have shared their lived experiences with us. Its purpose is to provide clearer procedure, strengthen oversight, and ensure that dignity and safety remains central to how Vermont manages its correctional facilities. And I hope that you will join me in supporting this bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: 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. Aye. Ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Up next is House Bill five eighty five which is an act relating to health insurance reforms. The bill was referred to the committee on healthcare which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Barrytown, Representative McFawn will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H five eighty five, an act relating to health insurance reforms.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Barrytown.

[Representative Francis McFaun (Barre Town)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'll be reporting on h five eighty five, which is a strike all amendment with the health health care committee chair, the member from Essex. Before I begin, the house health care committee would like to thank Vermont Blue Cross Blue Shield staff, all the providers, members of the administration, members of the general public, and businesses that worked so hard with us to craft this bill. In recent years, the cost of health care insurance has risen dramatically in Vermont and across the country. Even with that national trend, Vermont stands out with health care costs that are among the highest in the country, encompassing both the cost of insurance premiums and the actual cost of care. Vermont's current demographics, an aging population and fewer young people create a risk pool for insurance coverage that continues to drive these costs up. The demographics, along with the ramp down of the enhanced premium tax credits for coverage on the exchange means that ensuring the sustainability of the Vermont health insurance market is a serious challenge. This healthcare reform ominous package is designed to be bold and provocative. It is designed to consider how we create continued choice and access across income levels in all parts of the state. With a commitment of embracing change and considering all the possibilities, the package builds on work done last session as well as ongoing efforts to reduce the health care insurance costs for Vermonters. By addressing the high cost of care, the key driver behind rates while expanding access to additional coverage options and holding the state's largest insurer accountable. Now I'll start walking you through the bill. For those who want to follow along, you can find the bill on page eleven sixty four of today's calendar. H five eighty five, an act relating to health insurance reforms. Section one, one point eight four S. A. Chapter 123, nonprofit Hospital Service Corporations. This section amends the chapter on nonprofit hospital service corporations, which is the chapter under which Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont is organized. To address governance and executive compensation issues. It requires that in addition to being maintained and operated solely for the benefit of its subscribers, a nonprofit hospital service corporation must ensure that benefits are balanced with the efficient and economical management of the corporation. It requires that two voting members of a nonprofit hospital service corporation's board of directors and not less than one sixth of its members must be representatives of the public or appointed by the governor. It provides guiding principles for members of the public, including considering the effects of any action or inaction on the corporation's subscribers and on the community and societal considerations of the state of Vermont, including the Act 48 Principles for Healthcare Reform. It requires that a nonprofit hospital service corporation have a compensation committee to review and recommend for the board approval recommend for board approval all compensation practices offered to the corporation's offices and executives. It also specifies that at least two representatives of the public must be voting members of the compensation committee. It requires a nonprofit hospital service corporation to file with the Commissioner of the Department of Finance, Financial Regulation, DFR, by 07/01/2026 and before approving any executive's compensation. After that date, information about compensation provided to the corporation's executives, including compensation benchmarks, including detailed compensation survey or peer group data used in establishing executive compensation, and criteria on how it determined whether and how much bonus of variable compensation would be awarded to the executives in the prior fiscal year. It also it allows the DFR Commission to require a cooperation to modify its peer group data if the commissioner does not think the comparators used are sufficiently similar to the corporation. Section two, implementation of amendments to eight VSA VSA chapter 123. This section requires existing hospital service corporations to amend their bylaws by 09/01/2026 to comply with the amendments I just outlined on section one of the bill. At this point, I yield to the member from Essex.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Barrytown yields to the member from Essex.

[Representative Lori Houghton (Essex)]: Thank you. I'm going to be reporting on sections three through five and also section six. Section three through five concerns association health plans. So what's an association health plan? An association health plan allows small businesses, sole proprietors, and freelancers to band together forming an association to purchase insurance as a single large group. By operating as a large group, AHPs can provide access to more affordable, comprehensive coverage options typically reserved for larger employers. Under current federal law, associations must exist for reasons other than offering insurance. Section three through five sets in motion rule making that the Department of Financial Regulation can undertake if the federal law is rescinded. So section three amends the definition of multiple employer welfare arrangement to expand the scope of what constitutes an employer to which a group health insurance plan may be issued. Effective 01/01/2028. Section four amends the association health plan statute to expand the types of associations that may be issued a health plan to capture the amended scopes of multiple employer welfare arrangement and employer in section three effective 01/01/2028. Section five requires that DFR report to the General Assembly by 01/15/2027 about expanding access to association health plans that begin would begin on 01/01/2028 including whether the expanded access is allowed by federal law as of right now, March 2026, it is not. What the projected projected impacts on Vermont's health insurance market including likely effects on enrollment and premiums in the individual and small group markets and the potential impact on the Green Mountain Care Board's health insurance rate review responsibilities. Section six defines high dollar claims for claims edit purposes. This section specifies that high dollar claims for which health insurers may conduct prepayment coding validation edit review means claims over twenty five dollars zero per episode of care. Currently, it just says high dollar claims. Madam speaker, I'd like to yield back to the member from Barrytown to explain the next two sessions.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Essex yields to the member from Barrytown.

[Representative Francis McFaun (Barre Town)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Section seven and eight, site neutral reimbursement for physical therapy, occupational therapy, and athletic training. Section seven requires health insurance plans to pay the same amounts to providers for the same physical therapy, occupational therapy, and athletic training services across all outpatient settings. Section eight requires health insurers to provide an update to the General Assembly by 03/01/2027 on implementation of the site neutral reimbursements, any trends or other financial impacts identified so far, and recommendations regarding enactment of additional site neutral reimbursement requirements. I will yield back to the member from Essex.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Barrytown yields to the member from Essex.

[Representative Lori Houghton (Essex)]: Section nine, I'll be reporting on section nine and ten and eleven, actually. So section nine concerns prescription drug maximum out of pocket limits and increased flexibility in plan design. Currently in statute, Vermont mandates that the prescription drug out of pocket be capped at an amount determined by a federal internal revenue code for all plans except for the high deductible plans on our health exchange. This results in a lower out of pocket for prescription drugs than for the medical out of pocket. This section requires the Department of Vermont Health Access in consultation with DFR to consider and report to the general assembly by 01/15/2027 on the feasibility and potential impacts on premiums and plan designs of allowing health insurers to offer plans that do not include the current statutory out of pocket limits for prescription drugs, as well as plans that do include the limit. Section 10 concerns annual reporting on health care sharing plans and arrangements. So what's a health care sharing ministry? A health care sharing ministry is a non insurance faith faith based organization where members with shared religious or ethical beliefs contribute monthly payments to cover each other's medical expenses. They operate as cooperatives, not insurance companies, and they are exempt from the Affordable Care Act regulations. Health care sharing ministries often provide lower cost alternatives to health insurance, but they do not guarantee payments for claims and they may not cover preexisting conditions. As health insurance continues to become more unaffordable for all Americans, including Vermonters, consumers are seeking out lower cost options for health care coverage. And many are turning to health care sharing ministries. This is a viable and preferential option for many. However, this space is completely unregulated. Section 10 does not regulate health care sharing ministries. It simply requires that they report to the Department of Financial Regulation the business that they are conducting in the state of Vermont, which will allow Vermonters to make more informed decisions when selecting these options. This section is simply about transparency. The section requires anyone who is not authorized to offer health insurance in Vermont and who offers or intends to offer a health care sharing plan or arrangement to facilitate payments or reimbursement of health care costs or services for Vermonters to report certain information annually to the DFR Commissioner. It then also directs the DFR Commissioner to prepare an annual report summarizing the information and to post it on DFR's website. And finally, section 11 are the effective dates. This act would take effect on passage except that the expanded access to association health plans under Vermont law would take effect on 01/01/2028, and the site neutral reimbursements for physical therapy, occupational therapy, and athletic training would take effect on 10/01/2026. As Vermonters continue to struggle with the high cost of health insurance, this bill strikes a careful balance in its many different measures pertaining to the regulation of health insurance. It increases transparency. It provides needed tools for our regulator, DFR, in this space. It supports our health care providers while we continue work on other measures to bring down the cost of care. And most of all, it supports a system of regulation that will expand access and more affordable choices for Vermonters struggling to maintain health coverage. I personally would like to thank all the parties that worked so hard on this bill, particularly the Department of Financial Regulation. I thank them for bringing this bill forward and their support of all the provisions in the final bill. And most important of all, wouldn't be a bill report of mine without crying. I need

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: to

[Representative Lori Houghton (Essex)]: thank the member from Barrytown. Thank you for your stewardship, your mentoring, your tireless work on behalf of Vermonters, and thank you for the honor and privilege of allowing me to report this bill alongside you. It's my sincerest hope that my additional support today indicates to you just how grateful I am for all the support you have given me in the past several years. And with that, I yield back to member from Barrytown.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Essex yields to the member from Barrytown.

[Representative Francis McFaun (Barre Town)]: Well, I guess I want to respond to that just a little bit before I finish. I just really appreciate the leeway and the good listening and so on that took place between myself and the chair and the committee. And this is the last bill that I'll be reporting. And I can't say that I've enjoyed something like this. Just can't say that I enjoyed anything more than the experience that I've had with the last two committees that I served on, the Human Services Committee and the Healthcare Committee. The chairs of both of those committees are great friends of mine, and I appreciate everything that they're doing in leading their leadership to help people of the state of Vermont. So thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your kind words. The committee heard from the following witnesses concerning H-five 85. The Assistant General Counsel, the Department of Financial Regulations, the Executive Director, the Vermont Business for Social Responsibility, the Executive Director, of the Vermont Medical Society, the Staff Attorney of the Office of Healthcare Advocate, Vermont Legal Aid, the Deputy Commissioner of Insurance, Department of Financial Regulation, the Assistant General Counsel of the Department of Financial Regulation, the Executive Director of the Green Mountain Care Board, the Deputy Chief Counsel of the Office of Legislative Counsel, Family Physician Vice President of the Vermont Academy of Family Physicians, the Chief Healthcare Advocate for Vermont Legal Aid, the Chair of the Green Mountain Care Board, senior vice president of policy and strategy, the Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, the owner of the Rehab Gym and Kismus Place, director of legislative and government relations from Blue Cross Blue Shield, the executive director, the Alliance of Healthcare Sharing Ministries, the principal fiscal analyst of the joint fiscal office, director of public policy of the Samaritan Missionaries International, the representative from Madison 3, Common Good Vermont company co director of the United Way of Northwest Vermont, executive director of Health First Corporation, commissioner of the Department of Financial Regulations, the commissioner, Department of Health Access, the Vice President of Government Affairs of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, the Director of Government Affairs, the Christian Care Ministry, director of policy, the Department of Financial Regulation, the president of the Vermont Nurse Practitioners Association. And I don't know if I mentioned it here, but the legislative council. They were a tremendous help. The committee vote was eight three zero in favor of this bill, and we respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now the member from Burlington, representative Logan offers an amendment to the report of the committee on health care that is printed in today's calendar, member from Burlington.

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, I rise today with deep respect for the intent behind section one of h five eighty five. We share the same goal ensuring that Vermonters have access to affordable, accountable, high quality health care. This proposal also reflects a frustration that many of us feel particularly around high executive compensation for health care administration while Vermonters continue to pay more for health care than nearly anyone in the world. I also want to acknowledge that section one tacitly recognizes that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont is in many ways performing a public function. But I have serious concerns about the mechanism before us, and so I drafted this amendment that would strike section one and the related section two. This bill would allow the governor to appoint members directly to the board of directors of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont, a private nonprofit entity. While that may sound like a reasonable step forward toward accountability, it represents a significant departure from how nonprofit government nonprofit governance works, not just in Vermont but across the country. This proposal doesn't solve our accountability and governance problems. It complicates governance by introducing conflicting duties without delivering meaningful control. Nonprofits are structured to be independent fiduciary bodies. Board members have a legal duty of care and loyalty to the organization itself free from political influence. That independence is not a loophole. It is a safeguard. It allows boards to make complex, long term decisions about solvency, risk, and sustainability without being pulled by short term political pressures. This policy change blurs that line. If a board member is appointed by the governor, it's not clear who they answer to. The organization, the public, or the administration who appointed them. We risk creating confusion where fiduciary duties should be clear. And once we cross this line, we set a precedent, and that should give us pause. Accountability is essential. Vermont already has one of the strongest health care regulatory frameworks in the country including oversight by the Green Mountain Care Board. If there are gaps, we should address them through transparency, reporting, and regulatory authority, not by restructuring nonprofit governance. There are better options. We can clarify and enforce existing statute on board composition. We can establish public interest advisory roles. We can strengthen reporting requirements and expand oversight authority for regulators. These approaches would preserve clarity, stability, and trust while providing safeguards to ensure that the nonprofit fulfills its mission. Finally, I wanna name what sits beneath this debate. Health insurance is not a typical market good. It is essential. It determines whether people can access care, stay healthy, or avoid financial ruin. If we believe it is a public good or even a public utility, then we should be honest about what that means. Appointing a small number of board members is not a structural solution and it does not guarantee affordability or universal access. If we are serious about that goal, we should pursue policies that reflect it like a publicly financed system that ensures every Vermonter can access care without barriers. What is before us today is a partial step that risks politicizing governance without solving the underlying problem. Thank you, madam speaker, and I thank the committee. And with the leave of the house, I ask to withdraw my amendment.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Absent objection, leave is granted. Now the member from Ferrisburg, representative North, offers an amendment to the report of the committee on health care that is printed in today's calendar, member from Ferrisburg.

[Representative Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And and I do also want to give great thanks to the health care committee chair and vice chair alike as well as all the members for putting up with me twice coming in and testifying about this particular section of of the of the bill H five eighty five. So, I'm I'm speaking about the amendment here that simply seeks to delete section 10 of h five eighty five. That section 10 of the bill specifically targets health care sharing plans or arrangements for data collection and oversight with a whole list of 19 detailed data collection mandates that are required annually for each health care sharing organization that has members in Vermont or wants to operate in Vermont. The arrangements in health care sharing groups are are not unique. They're part of a broader category of of membership based non insurance as as was pointed out earlier. They are not insurance mutual aid business models that Vermont already allows to operate without any insurance style reporting. These types of of health care sharing arrangements are are specified with clear criteria and in fact, even protected and and identified in federal law as satisfying the requirement for minimum essential coverage under the Affordable Care Act. So, the the real policy question here is whether Vermont should regulate voluntary membership organizations if they were insurance when they're clearly, shouldn't say regulate, I should say collect data on, not regulate. It's not regulation that's being promoted here. As if they were operating as insurance, but clearly they're not. And so I just want to give a list of some of the other health care related and even non health care related membership type organizations that are are don't have the similar data requirement collections. There's health care cooperatives. There are direct primary care practices, concierge and membership medical practices, self funded employer health plans. None of these are subject to

[Representative Robert Hunter (Manchester)]: the

[Representative Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: specific section that we're talking about here today. And there are also non health care related membership organizations like farm and agricultural cooperatives, electric and utility cooperatives, housing cooperatives, and community land trusts, mutual aid and benevolent associations, crowdfunding platforms. None of these things are specified in in section 10 or sections like it. So and lastly, the the only other state that's implemented this same type of legislation is Colorado and they are currently experiencing or facing legal challenges on constitutional grounds for that legislation. It hasn't been resolved yet. And I don't know that we necessarily want to step into that before we get there, before before they're through going through it. However, I do want to note that if this data were to be collected and published on the state website as a list of approved and vetted health care sharing plans, it it might actually make it easier for Vermonters to to see and know about these types of plans and get access to them. So I that that actually is a benefit of of keeping section 10 in. So as the inscription on the National Archives Building says, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. We just need to be careful that this type of data collection doesn't creep into micromanagement or ultimately prevention of these type of health care ministries from serving the over a thousand Vermonters that they already do serve and provide a very nice form of affordable health care. So given that, while I would prefer to see section 10 deleted for regulatory consistency, I would, request leave of the house to withdraw my amendment, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Absent objection, leave is granted. Now the question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on health care? Are you ready for the question? Member from Castleton.

[Unknown Representative (Castleton)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And I first wanna start with a a moment of personal privilege and recognize the years of service and leadership from the member from Barrytown and the Vice Chair of the House Health Care Committee. I want to start by saying that I supported the North Amendment and I want this body to understand why those same concerns apply equally to the underlying section we are now being asked to vote on. I agree with the presenter of the bill that H five eighty five is a bold and provocative piece of legislation. The high cost of healthcare in this state is crushing families and straining small businesses and this bill takes that crisis seriously. The clinical decision making provisions, the private equity oversight, the executive compensation transparency, the site neutral reimbursement requirements, these represent exactly the kind of structural thinking this moment demands and I respect the committee deeply for that work. But section 10 does not belong in this bill. Here is the problem I cannot get passed. Colorado, as pointed out by the member from Ferrisburg, enacted a nearly identical health care sharing plan reporting law in 2022. It was immediately challenged on First Amendment grounds, religious liberty, free speech, and freedom of association. That case is right now before the tenth Circuit of Appeals, which heard oral arguments just last November and has not yet ruled. We do not know whether a law like Section 10 is constitutional. We simply do not know. And rather than waiting, perhaps just a matter of months, for that appellate ruling to give us guidance, we are pressing forward anyway. That is significant risk. It is the kind of risk that leads to expensive litigation and wasted resources. The prudent course would have been to wait for the Tenth Circuit's decision, understand what constitutional reporting framework actually looks like, and then draft accordingly. The constitutional concerns are serious and run-in multiple directions. Under the Establishment Clause, the government cannot subject religious organizations to the kind of continuous financial monitoring and reporting that Section 10 demands. Under the Free Exercise Clause, you cannot single out religious organizations for disproportionately burdensome treatment. Under the Free Speech Clause, compelling organizations to hand over their communications and member facing materials raises profound concerns. Legal experts analyzing provisions nearly identical to Section 10 have identified no fewer than nine distinct constitutional vulnerabilities. That is not a drafting problem. That is a structural problem that cannot be resolved from this floor. The operational problems are equally serious. The bill requires disclosure of fees, dues, and payments, none of which are defined. It requires reporting of claims that qualify for reimbursement without specifying what qualifies. It requires submission of marketing materials without defining marketing. And the definition of covered entities is so broad it could capture crowdfunding platforms, direct primary care arrangements, and university health plans. Arrangements that have nothing to do with the consumer protection concerns driving this section. An entity acting in complete good faith could not know with certainty whether it had complied until it received a notice of deficiency and a fine of up to $5,000 per day. I also want to make this point plainly. Healthcare sharing arrangements exist largely because the conventional insurance market has become unaffordable for too many Vermont families. These arrangements are, for many people, a last resort. Not a scheme, but a response to a system that has failed them. Before we impose significant compliance burdens on those alternatives, we ought to ask whether we have addressed the affordability problem that drove people to them in the first place. The high cost of care is the crisis and that is where our energy belongs. If this body wants to regulate healthcare sharing plans and there are there may well be good reasons to do so, the right approach is to wait for the Colorado ruling, define the terms clearly, identify precisely who is covered and why, and calibrate the requirements to what consumer protection genuinely needs. That work has not been done here and section 10 reflects that. I urge the body to vote no on the bill. Thank you.

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

[Representative Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Madam speaker, we're operating in the Wild West when it comes to health care ministries. We don't know how many health care sharing plans there are in Vermont. We don't know how many Vermonters are enrolled in them. And short of this bill, we have no requirement for them to submit any sort of reporting standards around transparency requirements or anything of the like. These organizations handle significant financial risk for Vermonters just like insurance companies, and it's time to start looking at treating them the same way. Madam speaker, I don't mean to vilify health care ministries. Some of them provide a very good service, but there are bad actors. And as the member from Castleton said, people are sometimes looking at last resorts. And when they are, they're in a vulnerable state. And if somebody comes to you offering a plan that looks very much like health insurance but isn't, that's a problem. It's a problem that's putting Vermonters at risk right now. And I've spoken to people who feel like they've been sold a false bill of goods by these plans. We deserve better and Vermonters deserve better, and we need to know who these people are. We need to bring them out of the shadows, and this bill is a very good first step at doing this.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on health care? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have amended the bill. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and third reading is ordered. Next up is house bill six forty two, which is an act relating to youthful offender proceedings. The bill was referred to the committee on judiciary which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Brattleboro, representative Goodnow, will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Page six forty two. An act relating to youthful offender proceedings. Member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Ian Goodnow (Brattleboro)]: Before the chamber is House Judiciary Committee's strike all amendment to h six forty two entitled an act relating to youthful offender proceedings. Madam Speaker, this bill proposes to make changes to two existing statutes to the youthful offender laws in Vermont to both improve how revocation of the youthful offender status occurs and allow for more victim input in the process. By way of a little background, the youthful offender system allows the transfer of jurisdiction from the criminal division to the family division for cases involving youth aged 14 to 21 for certain alleged criminal offenses. This transfer of jurisdiction provides for a confidential process in the family court, which is premised on the science related to adolescent brain development. H six forty two deals primarily with the procedures related to what happens when an individual, on youthful offender status violates juvenile probation. Specifically, what happens when there is a motion to revoke youth youthful offender status and send the youth to criminal court due to a probation violation. Moving on to the bill itself, madam speaker, section one can be found on page eleven eighty four in today's calendar. Section one proposes proposes to chain to make changes to 33 VSA fifty two eighty five and is related to modifications or revocations of a youth's juvenile probation. The first change to this section is to add a new subsection a two to 33 VSA fifty two eighty five, which extends the jurisdiction of the family division beyond the youth's 20 birthday if there is a pending motion to revoke the youthful offender status. This extended jurisdiction would last either until the youth's probation is revoked or the youth is discharged from probation. This new provision addresses a serious issue that currently exists where youths have timed out of their juvenile probation because the youth turns 22 while there is a pending motion for revocation or modification. This change will allow for the youth to remain within the family court's jurisdiction to either complete probation or have their youthful offender status revoked and be transferred to criminal court or the Department of Corrections custody. Madam Speaker, the second change in section one can be found on page eleven eighty five of today's calendar. Here, we're still operating in 33 VSA fifty two eighty five related to motions for revocation of a youthful offender status. These proposed changes relate to how the court determines what to do once it's ruled that there has been a violation of probation. The court has multiple options as to what it can what can happen once it's made that ruling. It can continue the youth on probation with any modifications it feels are necessary. It can revoke the youth's probation and transfer them to criminal court for sentencing, or it can transfer the youth into the custody of DOC. H six forty two proposes to provide a number of factors for the court to consider when deciding which of those outcomes to order. These can be found in the new proposed c two in 33 VSA 5285. The three factors proposed are one, if public safety will be protected if the youth continues on probation. Two, if the youth continues to be amenable to treatment as a youthful offender. And three, if there continues to be sufficient services to meet the youth's treatment and rehabilitation needs. Further, h six forty two clarifies that if that if a youth fails to appear at probation at a probation revocation hearing, if good cause is not shown for why the youth failed to appear, the court may order an officer to pick up the youth and bring them to court. Moving on to section two, madam speaker, h six forty two proposes to make multiple changes to sections of 33 VSA fifty two eighty eight relating to rights of victims in youthful offender proceedings. These changes can be found on page eleven eighty six of today's calendar. The primary change can be found in 33 VSA five thousand two and eighty eight a two. H six forty two proposes to add language to allow victims to be present at the preliminary hearing to determine whether a youth should be considered for youthful offender status and critically to allow the victim to testify as to whether they believe the youthful offender status to be appropriate for that youth. The further changes that can be found in fifty two eighty eight align language for court procedure to make clear the victim's rights as it relates to the youthful offender status. These changes are important, madam speaker, as a victim's experience and ultimately the outcome of their case will be will be dramatically different depending on whether the youth is transferred to youthful offender system or remains in the criminal court. And thus, the victim's voice should be heard and considered when the court is making that determination. Section three of the bill states that the bill will go into effect on 07/01/2026. Madam speaker, the youthful the youthful offender system in Vermont is an important tool for our young Vermonters. H six forty two will help to strengthen that system. The committee heard from the following witnesses, the director of the Office of Child and Youth Family Advocacy, the juvenile justice director for the Department of Children and Family, the vice chair of the Council for Equitable Youth Justice, legislative council from the Office of Legislative Council, general counsel for the Department of Public Safety, the director of communications and legislative affairs for the Department of Children and Family, legislative policy and records attorney for the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, the deputy commissioner, of Family Services Division of Department of Children and Family, the defender general from the defender general's office, and the chief superior judge from the Vermont judiciary. The bill was reported favorably out of house judiciary on a vote of ten zero one, and the committee respectfully requests the house to join us in supporting its passage.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Up next is House Bill seven thirty three which is an act relating to the regulation of franchise agreements. 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 Milton, representative Nicholas, will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H seven thirty three, an act relating to the regulation of franchise agreements.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Milton.

[Unknown Representative (Milton, Commerce Committee reporter)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Act seven thirty three, an act relating to designating a franchise relationship came to us as the committee began discussing whether there should be separate regulation regarding franchiser franchisee agreements. As we started that conversation, we realized that we really actually do not even know how many businesses in the state of Vermont operate as franchisors or franchisees. The first step to understanding that landscape is simply to know which businesses are and are not operating under franchise relationships. And thus, this amendment was born. Be at ease, this is a very short bill and I will now go through it section by section. If you'd like to follow along, it is on page eleven eighty seven of the House Journal. Section one adds a new provision to Vermont's business organization statutes requiring certain disclosures related to franchise relationships. First, the bill defines the term filing to include an initial registration amendment periodic report or other filing required by the Secretary of State. Second, the bill adopts the federal definitions of franchisee and franchisor as defined in the Federal Trade Commission's franchise rule at 16 CFR subsection four thirty six one. The section then requires that when a business files with the secretary of state, if it is operating as a franchisor or franchisee, it must, one, indicate that it is operating as a franchisor or franchisee, and two, if it is a franchisee, provide the name and the franchisor of the franchisor. This provision is primarily administrative and is indebted to allow the state to identify franchise relationships among businesses operating in Vermont. Section two provides that the act takes effect on 01/01/2027. This allows time for the secretary of state to update forms and for businesses to prepare for the new disclosure requirement. The committee heard testimony from the director of business services representing the Secretary of State's office, as well as legislative counsel from the Office of Legislative Counsel. Madam speaker, your committee on commerce and economic development found this bill favorable on a vote of eleven zero zero, and we respectfully ask for the body's support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on commerce and economic development? 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. Up next is house bill seven seventy five, which is an act relating to creating tools for housing production. The bill was referred to the committee on general and housing, which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Chester, representative Charlton, will speak for the committee and affecting the revenue of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on ways and means which recommends that the report of the committee on general and housing be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Woodstock, representative Kimball, 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 general and housing and when amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means and then further amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Saint Albans Town, representative Dickinson will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H seven seventy five, an act relating to creating tools for housing production.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Chester.

[Representative Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Chester)]: Madam speaker, your general and housing committee submits this floor report on h seven seventy five, an act relating to creating tools for housing production, which can be found on page eleven eighty eight of today's calendar. I will present the bill along with the member from Callis. So with your permission, I would like to begin by yielding the floor to the member from Callis.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Chester Yields the member from Callis.

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: Madam speaker, last year the legislature passed out an omnibus housing bill that was signed by the governor. It contained a new housing finance device called CHIP, which we hope will provide additional tools to facilitate new housing construction. Even as that effort was underway, your general and housing committee began work on additional measures to further assist in the production of housing, especially in rural Vermont where projects tend to be on a smaller scale and where some communities may not have the resources necessary to navigate the chip tax increment process. H seven seventy five is the result of those efforts. It is a collection of new tools to promote housing in rural areas. Here, in brief, are the key elements of the bill. A new process for infrastructure financing for small projects. This involves a streamlined approach to project specific special assessment bonds. Increases to the current treasurer's 10% for Vermont housing program to facilitate more low interest housing loans. A modular and manufactured home accelerator project that facilitates the aggregation of smaller projects into large orders guaranteed by the state treasurer, all in order to reduce the price of that housing. Authorization for the state to front the cost of certain apartment rehabilitations through the state's VHIP program. A provision that allows the Vermont Economic Development Authority known as VITA to enter the housing finance arena. Currently, VITA lends on commercial projects and now would be able to lend on residential. And finally, provisions that allow that incorporate housing targets into municipal plans and importantly expressly provide that municipalities should advise the Department of Housing and Community Development on physical infrastructure and regulatory issues that impede the achievement of those targets. In other words, to give us real data. Madam speaker, we will now discuss each of these elements, though in order to facilitate the explanation, not quite in the nor in the order of the numbering of the bill. I'm I'm going to start with section one. Section one of the bill authorizes the select board of a town to approve what are called revenue bonds, backed by the special assessments to support infrastructure and other public improvements in smaller projects. And unless one is a finance guru, a bit of explanation is required here to understand the true value of this section. So I'm going to take the liberty of assuming that it's worth a minute or two to do this. Special assessments are a common way to help finance project related infrastructure, especially in rural areas where the assessments may support group septic plants, access roads, or other improvements for a housing project. Bonds are issued at the start of the project to generate the capital to build the improvements. The benefited property, that is the development itself, the benefited property owners pay the annual assessments for a period of say ten or twenty years to pay back the purchases of the bonds. That is the bondholders. These bonds, madam speaker, come in two basic forms. Some are called GO bonds or general obligation bonds. That's because although it's anticipated that the bondholders will be paid by the tax assessments levied on the benefited properties, ultimately, should those be insufficient, the issuing town promises to pay back bondholders no matter what, using its taxing power if necessary. For these general obligation bonds, therefore, a vote of the whole town is required because should the assessments be insufficient, the bondholders will look to the town taxpayers. By contrast, a really useful type of bond, especially for smaller projects, is called a revenue bond. Unlike general obligation bonds, these revenue bonds With these revenue bonds, the bondholders are paid solely and exclusively from the special assessments levied on the property served by the improvement. They are called revenue bonds because the bondholders may only look to the revenue from the assessments. The full faith and credit of the town is not implicated, and the bondholders may not compel any exercise of the taxing payer of the town. Accordingly, this section of h seven seventy five requires approval only of the select board and the owners of the benefited properties for this type of financing. Madam speaker, I'd like to yield the floor to the member from Chester who will address in sections four through eight of the bill. I will return to sections two and three of the bill subsequently because they're best explained in the context of those sections the member from Chester will address first.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from CALUS yields to the member to from Chester.

[Representative Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Chester)]: Thank you. Substantial work has already been done around the idea of off manufacturing of housing by the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Treasurer's Office, the Vermont Housing Finance Agency, and others, and their work is largely reflected in Section four as well as throughout the bill. Section four authorizes the Agency of Commerce and Community Development in collaboration with the Department of Buildings and General Services to develop a pilot demonstration project and study the reduction of housing development costs through modular off-site construction. This pilot will aggregate bulk purchases of off-site manufactured housing units in order to pass savings along to multiple smaller projects which would not otherwise realize this economy of scale. The agency will work with the office of the state treasurer to provide a guarantee or other device to facilitate these bulk purchases, and this will be expanded in other sections of H-seven 75. The pilot and resulting report will also consider the creation of consistent off-site building codes, aligning state and local permitting, and streamlining regulatory processes. The pilot will take place in municipalities willing to participate in any regulatory reforms necessary to accept these homes as built. Municipal planning grants will be available to assist in enacting these reforms. On or before 11/15/2028, the agency will submit a written report to the House Committee on General and Housing, the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs with its findings and any recommendations for legislative action based on the success of the pilot. A sunset date for the pilot is specified in an amendment, which will be offered in a few moments. Section five of the bill facilitates bringing more affordable rental units to the market in smaller projects through the current Vermont Housing Improvement Program or VHIP. VHIP grants owners of smaller rental buildings up to $50,000 to bring existing rental units up to code and to make other improvements. And currently, payment is made as a reimbursement at completion of work. Section five allows VHIP to advance funding at the beginning of a project. This makes the program more accessible to projects which would otherwise not be able to front 100% of the project costs. Section six of the bill expands financing available to housing. The Vermont Economic Development Authority known as VIDA is not currently authorized to invest in housing. Section six authorizes VIDA to enter the residential market for multifamily projects for five or more units, always in coordination with and in deference to the Vermont Housing Finance Agency. Section seven of the bill is designed to assist towns in addressing their respective housing targets. This asks municipalities to include regional housing targets in their municipal plan or to provide to the Department of Housing and Community Development an analysis of the physical and regulatory constraints preventing them from meeting these targets. The information to be considered in these analyses is simplified in the amendment from our Ways and Means Committee and will be presented by them momentarily. Section eight of the bill would create two new positions in the Department of Housing and Community Development. As you will hear shortly, these have been deleted in the amendment from the Appropriations Committee. Madam speaker, I would now like to yield the floor back to the member from Callis.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Chester Yields to the member from Callis.

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: Madam speaker, section two I'm back to section two. Section two of the bill also expands financing available to housing projects. The 10% Vermont for Vermont program housed in the office of the state treasurer grants loans for the development of affordable and senior housing at very low below market interest rates. The capital for the loans comes from the use of 10% of the state's average cash balance. This bill increases the available funds for this program to 12.5%, an amount which the treasurer testified is still quite consistent with the state's cash needs and the overall liquidity of its cash balance. Madam Speaker, the member from Chester just spoke of the portion of the bill that created a housing accelerator to permit aggregation of smaller modular housing projects into larger orders in order to have the price of such housing be lower. This section two of the bill facilitates that effort. It authorizes the treasurer to use up to 1% of that 12.5% to establish a credit facility to back those orders in order to encourage modular producers to expand their production facilities, something they might not be willing to do otherwise for very small projects. And finally, section three of the bill creates a special housing fund into which the interest earned on the housing loans made by the treasurer flows in order to be reinvested in additional housing loans. Note that as you will shortly hear, ways and means omits this fund and leaves the interest income in the general fund. Madam speaker, I yield the floor back to the member from Chester.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from CALS yields to the member from Chester.

[Representative Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Chester)]: Madam speaker, your general and housing committee took testimony on h seven seventy five from the following witnesses, the sponsors of the bill, joint fiscal office, the office of legislative council, Northwest Regional Planning Commission, the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Vermont Bond Bank, ABT Associates, Vermont League of Cities and Towns, Action Circles Vermont Community Action Partnership, the office of the state treasurer, the state treasurer, Huntington Homes Inc. The bill passed out of your housing and general committee on the vote of ten zero one, and we respectfully request the body's support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the Committee on Ways and Means, member from Woodstock.

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Madam speaker, the Committee on Ways and Means is recommending that the bill be amended. H seven fifty seven was referred to the committee on ways and means because some provisions of the bill affected the revenues of the state or its political subdivisions. More specifically, the special assessment bonds created in section one of the bill could affect the revenues of municipalities. Second, the bill proposed to divert interest paid on loans or credit facilities for local investments that are extended by the treasurer's office from the general fund to the newly created Vermont Housing Special Fund. The amendment offered by house ways and means has four instances of amendment and can be found starting on page one one nine five of today's calendar. Members can also find two different fiscal notes associated with the bill and the amendment on the legislative website. Section two of the bill expands the authorization of the state treasurer for local investments from 10% to 12 and a half percent of the state's daily cash balance. With the express purpose of funding the existing credit facility to fund the bulk purchase of off-site constructed housing units, reserving 1% of the total to be used for that purpose. Our first instance of amendment strikes subdivision a three of the bill that would have allowed the financial losses created from the credit facilities established for bulk purchasing to be paid from the Vermont Housing Special Fund, which we eliminate in a subsequent instance of amendment. The second instance of amendment removes the retention of interest of loans made through the local investment advisory committee. The 10% for Vermont program, which authorizes the treasurer to lend up to 10% of the state's daily cash balances, is guided by the investment policy issued by the state treasurer. The LIAC, the local investment advisory committee, advises the treasurer on how much can be extended in loans. The current ceiling is set at a $120,000,000. The interest is loaned at low rates to organizations throughout the state from 1% to 4%, far below commercial rates. Currently, all interest is paid into the general fund. If the interest was diverted into this newly proposed fund, it would result in a loss to the general fund of $1,200,000 to the general fund in fiscal year 2027 and potentially grow to $3,100,000 in future years. The amendment retains the interest being paid to the general fund. The third instance of amendment eliminates the proposed Vermont Housing Special Fund as it will not have the interest from the loan programs deposited into it. The fourth instance of amendment replaces language in section seven of the bill entitled planning for housing targets. The language was brought to us to make it easier for municipalities to comply with the new required elements of municipal plans. The level of information required of municipalities to collect in the bill exceeds the capacity of many municipalities. It also asks the planning entity of municipality to provide regulations which is not always in their purview. The fiscal note on the ways and means amendment does show the potential of $600,000 in foregone revenues. This drop in revenues is the difference between the market rate of what the treasurer's office could earn with a $30,000,000 in expanded lending capacity and traditional investments versus the lower interest loans through the credit facilities created for the bulk purchasing of off-site constructed housing. The committee on ways and means heard from the following witnesses. A fiscal analyst from the joint a fiscal analyst from the joint fiscal office, the executive director of Vermont Bond Bank, legislative council of the office of legislative council, the deputy treasurer of the office of the state treasurer, the municipal policy and advocacy specialists from the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, the director of legislative affairs of the office of the state treasurer, legislative counsel of the office of legislative counsel. Madam speaker, the Ways and Means Committee found voted in favor of this amendment eleven zero zero. It's printed in the calendar as nine two. That was our vote on the final bill, and we ask for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Chester.

[Representative Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Chester)]: Your general and housing committee thanks the Ways and Means Committee for their careful attention to h seven seventy five and supports the amendment by a straw poll of ten zero one.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, the member from Saint Albans Town.

[Representative Eileen Dickinson (St. Albans Town)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The bill has no fiscal cost to the state's general fund and does not appropriate funds. This bill raises the cap that the treasurer can use from the state's average cash balance from 10% to 12.5%. This increase of this cash balance can be used for bulk purchasing of off-site construction housing. The committee on appropriations recommends that the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on general and Housing. When further amended as recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means. And when further amended by striking out Section eight positions in its entirety and starting in lieu thereof a new Section eight to read as follows, deleted. We decided we did not need those two positions, and we asked for the body's support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Chester.

[Representative Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Chester)]: The general and housing committee thanks the appropriations committee for their careful attention to h seven seventy five and supports the amendment by a straw poll of ten zero

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: the report of the committee on general and housing 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 general and housing. Now the question is shall the report of the committee on general and housing as amended be further 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. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have further amended the report of the committee on general and housing. Now the member from Chester, representative Carl Charlton, offers a further amendment to the report of the committee on general and housing that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Chester.

[Representative Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Chester)]: The so called Charlton amendment that you will see in your calendar simply assigns a sunset date to the pilot program of 06/30/2030. I'm I'm also very delighted to report that the committee supports the amendment by a straw poll of ten zero one.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the shall the report of the committee on general and housing as amended be further amended as offer offered by the member from Chester. 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 general and housing. Now the question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on general and housing 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 up here have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Up next is House Bill nine twenty one which is an act relating to alcoholic beverages. The bill was introduced by the committee on government operations and military affairs. The member from Cambridge, representative Boyden will speak 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. The members from South Burlington, representative Burkhardt, will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H nine twenty one, an act relating to alcoholic beverages.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Cambridge.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: Madam speaker, h nine two one relates to alcoholic beverages and proposes to amend various provisions of title seven relating to the board of liquor and lottery, fourth class licenses, manufacturers of alcoholic beverages, special events permits, and special venue serving permits. I will briefly walk through the sections of the bill, which can be found on the legislative website. Section one adjusts the term length for members of the board of liquor and lottery from three to four years. Section two, subsection b one b specifies the aggregate total pour amounts a fourth class licensee may distribute for consumption at a tasting room and retail shop. Subsection c one increases the number of fourth class license locations operated by licensee that can sell products from other licensed manufacturers to not more than 10. These locations can sell by the unopened container or distribute by the glass, malt, vinous, or ready to drink spirits, beverages produced by other licensed manufacturers, and not more than seven licensed manufacturers of spirits or fortified wines. Section two allows a licensed manufacturer to sell its products to any fourth class licensee. Section three removes the specific hours of sale for off premise alcoholic beverages and would default hours of sale to the underlying license within section 62 of of title seven. Section four adds conforming language to clarify that special events permits are subject to approval by the local control commissioners. Section five requires casing and event permit applications to be submitted at least one business day prior to the update of the event. Section six includes Vinus beverage licensed manufacturers and being able to operate up to two licensed establishments that are located at the licensed manufacturing facility or on the property that is owned by the licensee and is contiguous with the parcel of land on which the licensed manufacturing facility is located. Subsection g allows a licensed manufacturer of malt beverages to distribute an annual total of not more than 3,000 barrels of malt beverages directly to holders of first or second class licenses. Section seven, sunsets the direct distribution for licensed manufacturers of malt beverages provision within section six. Section eight eliminates the requirement for payments to the division of liquor control to be made by certified check a solicitor's license fee. Sections nine and ten removed the 2026 sunset of the inclusion of retail establishments within the special venue serving permit from act, one fifty six of 2024. Section 11 includes the infective dates. This section and sections nine and ten shall take effect on passage, leading to deleting the 2026 sunset of the inclusion of retail establishments within the special venue serving permit. Section seven shall take effect on 07/01/2028 relating to sunsetting the direct distribution of licensed manufacturers of malt beverages. All other sections shall take effect on 07/01/2026. The committee heard testimony from legislative council, office of legislative council, commissioner, department of liquor and lottery, deputy commissioner of insurance, department of financial regulation, Vermont Chamber of Commerce, Vermont Wholesale Beverage Association, members of the Grape and Wine Council, executive director and members of the Vermont beverages beverage Brewers Association. Excuse me. Members of the Distilled Spirits Council of Vermont, Maine and Mountain Bar and Motel, Kramer and Kin Brewery, the Black Back Pub, Farrell Distributing Corporation, and a resident of Vermont with public health policy background. The bill passed out a committee on a vote of eleven zero zero. Your committee on government operations and military affairs respectfully request your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on ways and means, member from South Burlington.

[Representative Bridget Burkhardt (South Burlington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Your committee on ways and means reviewed h nine two one because it has an impact on the revenue collected by the state. The joint fiscal office prepared a fiscal note regarding h nine two one dated 03/13/2026, which can be found on the ways and means committee page or on the JFO website by searching for the bill number. Sections nine and ten of the bill repeal the sunset of the ability of the liquor division of liquor control to issue special venue serving permits to retail establishments. A two year pilot to grant these time limited $20 permits to retail establishments was established in act one fifty six of 2024. Act one fifty six contained a sunset of the pilot that was to take effect on 07/01/2020 H nine two one would repeal the sunset and maintain the small amount of revenue these permits generate for the Liquor Control Enterprise Fund. We heard from a senior fiscal analyst from the Joint Fiscal Office and legislative council from the office of legislative council. And the committee found the bill favorable on a vote of eleven zero zero, and we recommend that

[Representative Erin Brady (Williston)]: the bill ought to pass.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it, The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Now we'll turn to House Bill five thirty six which is an act relating to toxic heavy metals and baby food products. The bill was referred to the committee on food resiliency, and forestry, which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Derby, representative Nielsen, will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[First Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Page five thirty six, an act relating to toxic heavy metals and baby food products.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Derby.

[Representative Todd Nielsen (Derby)]: Madam speaker, today I present to you age five thirty six, an act relating to baby food. Excuse me. Been a long time without talking much today, and I gotta get lumbered up here. Vermont's greatest treasure is its children, and they deserve our best protections that we can deliver. This acts proposes to do just this. It requires baby food companies to post the levels of heavy metals in their products. Heavy metals are found in our environment persistently. They enter the food chain through soil, water, and industrial pollution, often absorbed as they grow. These heavy metals are arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. FDA has an initiative of closer to zero, focusing on reducing dietary exposure for babies and young children. Also now started by the FDA is Operation Stork Speed, which will address formula, and that will probably be coming up in a few minutes. In my world, formula is known as milk replacer, but we'll refer to it as formula here for this case. I went to our local supermarket to see for myself how the reporting requirement works as baby food companies now are required by the FDA to put a QR code on their bottle. And I found it very easy to use and very informative. And, madam speaker, if I could read to you just one one sample of what I saw.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Todd Nielsen (Derby)]: The transparency you deserve. Our commitment to caregivers. Feeding tiny tummies comes with big responsibility. We know the presence of heavy metals and baby foods can be concerning. We are here to provide you with the peace of mind you deserve. Our quality standards are industry leading. We quality check our 300 plus ingredients before crafting each of our foods and test every single finished product for heavy metals. If you have any questions, call their hotline 20 and then it says, Love the Baby Food Company family. So, with further ado, I'll get to the crux of the bill, and I'm gonna give you all the Reader's Zeisser's version so I keep your attention. Baby food. As used in this section, baby food product means any food manufactured, packaged, and labeled in a jar, pouch, tub, box, sold specifically for babies and children younger than two years of age. Baby food product does not include infant formula. Infant formula means a commercially available milk based or soy based concentrated liquid or ready to feed substitute for human breast milk that is intended for infant consumption. A proficient laboratory means a laboratory that, a, is accredited under the standards of International Organization for Standardization or the International Electrotechnical Commission pursuant to standard ISO backslash IEC seventeen zero twenty five colon twenty seventeen. A QR code means dimensional matrix bar code consisting of blocks arranged in a grid that can be read by an imaging device. Toxic heavy metals, again, are arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. URL means uniform resource locator. Section b on page well, this Sorry. You can follow along on page eleven forty nine in today's journal. Section B, a person shall not sell, distribute, or offer for sale any baby food product in the state that contains a toxic heavy metal that exceeds the limits established by the US FDA. This provision of this subsection shall not restrict the continued sale of inventory and stock before 01/01/2027. There is a link to the USDA's website that provides the most recent USDA guidance and information about the health effects of toxic heavy metals on children. Okay. A label stating in a clear, legible, and suspicious manner that more information about toxic element testing on product is available by scanning the QR code. And number two, a QR code or other machine readable code that directs the consumer to the manufacturer's website or the baby food product information page providing A, test results for the toxic heavy metal, And B, a URL to the webpage on USDA's website that includes the most recent guidance and information about the health effects of toxic heavy metal in children. F, if a consumer reasonably believes, based on the information provided on the baby food product, that a baby food product is being sold in the state in violation of this section, the consumer may report the baby food product to the Department of Health. Later on, we referenced the Attorney General will have the authority to make rules, conduct civil investigation, and enter in assurances of discontinuance and bring civil actions and private parties to the same rights and remedies as provided in nine VSA chapter 63 sub chapter one. The effective date would take place on 01/01/2027. We heard several witnesses. We heard from the the director from the Vermont Agriculture and Environmental Laboratory Agency of Agriculture Food and Markets. We heard from the Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Health, the Director of Government Affairs from the Infant Nutrient Council of America, INCA. We heard from state toxicologists, the chief environmental and public protection division, attorney general's office. We heard from legislative council, office of legislative council, and we are, as a committee, most grateful to their work in the wee hours and Friday and into the weekend and so forth. We heard from the National Director of Unleaded Kids multiple times. We heard from the Director of Government Relations, the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation. We heard from the Director of Food Policy Consumer Reports. And special thanks to the member from Burlington, our sponsor of this bill. We recommend this bill ought to pass as it came out of our committee seven zero one. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now the member from Heartland, representative Bartholomew and others offer an amendment to the report of the committee on agriculture, food resiliency and forestry that the first assistant clerk emailed to members at 03:24 today. This amendment is also posted on our house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Heartland.

[Representative John L. Bartholomew (Hartland)]: Madam speaker, I think it's notable that for the second day in a row, I've worked with a member from Derby on a bill. This amendment is brought to you by all of your members of the agriculture, food, resiliency, and forestry committee. We, as a body, often talk about protecting Vermont's most vulnerable citizens, and our committee can't really think of anyone more vulnerable than our babies and infants. As you heard in the presentation of the bill, this bill does not include infant formula, and we found, as a committee, this to be somewhat troubling. The issue here is while several states have enacted legislation for testing of baby food for heavy metals, no other state has done this for formula. And while we often like Vermont to be first, given the fact that our markets are fairly small, and we wanna make sure formula is We didn't want to run into an issue with that. So, that's, we came up with this amendment to include infant formula. Did it go off again? No, it's back. So, in kind of an odd way, I'm going to present this amendment backwards starting with section three, the effective dates. You'll see that the effective date for the section that was just reported by the member from Derby hasn't changed. But what we've done is create a threshold so that when other states enact legislation to cover formula, that ours will go into effect. And so, says that if either California or two other states have enacted legislation with requirements substantially comparable to the requirements of this act regarding all of the following. Prohibition on the sale and distribution and and Did it go off again? Yeah.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member, maybe use the other mic.

[Representative John L. Bartholomew (Hartland)]: Which other mic? Okay. Again, so one, the prohibition on the sale and distribution of infinite formula that contains a toxic heavy metal exceeding USDA Food and Drug Administration limits. Two, the required testing of infant formula sold and distributed in the state for toxic heavy metals. And three, the labeling of infant formula and the provision that information about toxic heavy metals, in infant formula. So if those apply in some in two other states or California, this would go into effect. So going backwards in the amendment, if you look at section two, when we reach this threshold, the definition of baby food will change so that it will also include infant formula, and then the sentence at the end, baby food product does not include infant formula will go away. And then we also included another section as a contingency plan stating that the attorney general shall suspend the application of this section to infant formula if the attorney general general verifies that there is insufficient infant formula in the state to meet the need. If the attorney general suspends application, the attorney general shall post notice on the attorney general's website containing specific dates that the suspension is in effect. So that's what we're changing in terms of infant formula. We did make another change. We're proposing another change to the section that has already been reported. One of the questions that came up is to whom if a consumer has a complaint should this the consumer direct their complaint or their concern? And obviously, is this a well, is this a health issue or is this a consumer protection issue? And the answer is, of course, both. And we heard from the representatives from the Department of Health as well as the Office of the Attorney General. The Department of Health, while it might be appropriate, isn't really set up to handle this kind of stuff whereas the Attorney General is. So it made the most sense to make changes there so that rather than contacting the commissioner of health, you would contact the attorney general. So there are two changes there in in section subsection c. This is in section one. It will now read, upon request of the attorney general, a manufacturer shall provide the results of the test conducted pursuant to this subsection. And we made a very similar change in subsection f. If the consumer reasonably believes based on the information provided on the baby food product that that the baby food product is being sold in the state in violation of this section, the consumer may report the baby food product to the attorney general. So that is what our amendment is, and we ask for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Derby. Oh, you did it. I remember. The question is, shall the report of the committee on agriculture, food, resiliency, and forestry be amended as offered by the member from Heartland and others. Are you ready for the question? Member, is this on the amendment? Member from Burlington.

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I thank the committee for their work on this amendment. I thank them because supporting the inclusion of infant formula in this bill is about ensuring that every Vermont baby has access to safe, nutritious food during the earliest and most vulnerable stage of life. Ensuring that formula is safe, transparent, and held to high standards protect infants at the very moment when their bodies and brains are developing most rapidly. It was after conversations with this committee that I started looking at the supplemental formula that I was feeding my baby and asking myself, what is in this? That led me researching the issue and finding some of the the same concerns that led to my reasons for introducing the underlying bill. May I quote from a consumer report study from 03/06/2026 titled, we tested 49 more baby formulas for lead and arsenic.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Among the liquid and ready to feed formulas we tested, one third landed in our list of top choices with contaminant levels that were either very low or not detected at all and over half of the powder formulas we tested were top choices for low or undetected contaminant levels. But, our tests also indicate that there is still room for improvement despite industry and government promises, including the Food and Drug Administration's announcement of its Operation Stork Speed campaign the day after Consumer Reports shared its initial findings in March 2025. Our most recent round of tests detect contaminants at potentially concerning levels in 26 out of 49 formulas we tested. Aside from our own test results, other alarming recent developments like the 2025 BiHeart recall for botulism have laid bare the shortcomings of some formula manufacturers' safety processes. Quiet cuts to staffing and budgets at the FDA have the potential to weaken oversight even more. If the infant formula industry has been plagued by one high profile crisis after another in recent years, it's also true that the increased public attention to long standing problems can be just what forces the issue with those who have the power to fix the problems. I'm gonna repeat that. It's also true that the increased public attention to long standing problems can be just what forces the issue with those who have the power to fix the problems. I went home after reading the article, and I threw out the formula that I was giving my four month old because it had been flagged for having levels nearing daily limits for lead. I'm a health care worker. I've worked in NICU step on units. I've worked with babies and families on feeding for over a decade. I have nine years of post secondary education to work as a health care worker. I've sat through more chemistry classes than the average person, and above all, I deeply care about my child. Yet this still was the case. Why? Because our laws are flawed. Oversight is lacking and because consumer protection is desperately needed. Parents should not have to be chemist to feel safe feeding their babies, period. At its core, this edition is about protecting the babies who rely on us most. Including formula in this legislation helps create a system where all infant nutrition products are tested with the same level of care and oversight. When we strengthen protections around the foods babies depend on, we are investing directly in the health growth and well-being of Vermont's youngest resident and supporting the families who are doing their very best to nourish them. I stand here today as a state representative, a frontline health care worker, and most importantly, as a mother, the title that means the very most to me. May we have the strength, willpower to protect the least of these, our youngest Vermonters. I urge the body to support this amendment.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on agriculture, food resiliency, and forestry be amended as offered by the member from Heartland 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 amended the report of the committee on agriculture, food resiliency and forestry. Now the question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on agriculture, food resiliency, and forestry as amended? Are you ready for that question? Member from Woodstock.

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Madam speaker, I rise so that I can interrogate the presenter of the bill.

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

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Member, you asked me to ask you questions because you didn't want it to go without questions. So here I here we go. But member, Anne, as you were taking testimony, did you speak with any manufacturers of baby products at all?

[Representative Todd Nielsen (Derby)]: We spoke with representatives from the manufacturer groups, which I believe Inca is one of them,

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: and that was it. And did they indicate in their testimony to you any difficulty in complying with the regulation that we're proposing?

[Representative Todd Nielsen (Derby)]: There was no indication of any test, any difficulty. And matter of fact, the QR code is a requirement of the states that enacted before we did so that people can find the results of the heavy metal and or the concentrations in the food thereof. And there has been great compliance with it all.

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Great. I I thank the member. I'm done with the interrogation. Oftentimes, we pass legislation that is extremely difficult to implement. Sometimes it costs us millions to defend legislation that we do, but in this case, it seems like the manufacturers are already ready to comply. They're making those changes to their labeling in other states already. So for that, I will definitely support the bill. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on agriculture, food resiliency, and forestry as amended. Are you ready for the question? Member from Georgia.

[Representative James Gregoire (Fairfield/Georgia)]: Thanks Madam Speaker. I want to point out to the chamber that at times it's not the formula or the package or anything at all that we pick up at the store, but it's the water that we mix with these powders and, you know, how the formula comes a little thicker than what the child can consume so you have to add like a cup of water with the the can or something. But it's the water that is of most concern to me. Many Vermonters have their own water systems, a drilled well, an artesian well or a spring and they think that if you they have especially an artesian well then it's pure water, well it's not. And I think that ought to be of equal concern to us.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on agriculture, food resiliency and forestry as amended. If so, are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Members that completes the orders of the day. Members earlier today the committee on ways and means reported favorably on House Bill six fifty seven which is an act relating to enabling unaccompanied homeless youth to obtain certain services without parental consent. Carrying an appropriation, the bill is referred to the committee on appropriations pursuant to house rule 35A pending its entry on the notice calendar. Members, at this time, the house transportation committee has voted out the transportation bill. It was our it's our goal, to do some crossover magic tonight and be able to refer that bill to the committee on ways and means, and we are about ten minutes away from that happening. So we are gonna recess for ten minutes so that we can come back and refer that bill to the committee on ways and means. So the house will stand in recess for fifteen ten for ten minutes.