Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Members, in lieu of a devotional today, will you please join me in a moment of silence? Members, we have two senate bills for referral. The first is senate bill two eleven, which is an act relating to motor vehicle inspections introduced by senator White and others. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk)]: S two eleven, an act relating to motor vehicle inspections.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Now the bill has been read the first time and is referred to the committee on transportation. And senate bill two ninety eight, which is an act relating to creating the Vermont Voting Rights Act introduced by senator Ron Hinsdale and others, please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk)]: S two ninety eight, an act relating to creating the Vermont Voting Rights Act.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Now the bill has been read the first time and is referred to the committee on government operations and military affairs. Members earlier today, the committee on ways and means reported favorably on house bill two eleven, which is an act relating to data brokers and personal information. Carrying an appropriation, the bill is referred to the committee on appropriations pursuant to house rule 35 a pending its entry on the notice calendar. In addition, earlier today the committee on ways and means reported favorable with amendment on house bill nine thirty one which is an act relating to miscellaneous changes in education law. Carrying an appropriation, the bill is also referred to the committee on appropriations pursuant to house rule 35A pending its entry on the notice calendar. We now have a joint resolution house resolution to take up at this time. JRH nine is a joint resolution urging their American speech language hearing association to reconsider its opposition to the rapid prompting method of communication instruction for students with proxy of speech or autism introduced by representative Burt of Cabot and others. Please listen to the reading of the resolution by title only.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk/Reading Clerk)]: JRH nine joint resolution urging the American Speech Language Hearing Association to reconsider its opposition to the rapid prompting method of communication instruction for students with apraxia of speech or autism.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Now the resolution has been read for the first time and the same is treated as a bill referred to the committee on human services. Are there any announcements? Are there any announcements? Member from Colchester.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Colchester)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'd like to welcome to the chamber members of the Vermont chapter of the American Physical Therapy Association. Physical therapy helps restore movement and function over illness or injury and avoid unnecessary surgeries while reduces downstream health care spending. From early intervention services for young children in schools to reducing alliance in on opioids and ER visits for pain management. Physical therapy lowers costs. Please stop by in the card room. They're there today, but I think it's wrapping up. Please join me in welcoming the Vermont Chapter of the American Physical Therapy Association. They're seated in the gallery.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guest the member from Colchester please rise and be recognized? Are there any further announcements? Member from Weitzfield.

[Rep. Kari Dolan (Waitsfield)]: Madam speaker, this is a reminder to all members that there will be a meeting on the subject of education reform this afternoon at 05:00 in Room 11. All are welcome.

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

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Fairfax)]: Thank you, madam speaker. As was mentioned yesterday, we are in the heart of March Madness. I am we are all constantly getting text messages from the former member from chitting in. So please make my job and our job a little bit easier. Make sure you do your brackets. Men's have already closed, but women's close tomorrow around, 11:30. So please do that. If you have any questions, reach out. Or you could always reach out to the former member. I'm sure he'd love it.

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

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (West Windsor/Hartland)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I just wanted to make a correction from yesterday when I stood up and asked, like, a question about eight 09:30. I made a claim that, there was something put into last year twenty twenty three's yield bill, and in fact, that was, s one thirty eight of 2023. And in the name of the working group that, came out of that bill was the, working group on student protections from harassment and discrimination in schools. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, orders of the day. Oh, member from Cabot.

[Rep. Greg Burtt (Cabot)]: Sorry. Thank you, madam speaker. I just wanted to introduce to the body Donahue Kunowski is here today. He he hails from Weston and he's the former executive director of 36 group homes in New Jersey and five in Pennsylvania. These were homes for neuro neurodiverse and developmentally disadvantaged people. Donahue is a proponent of the the resolution that was mentioned earlier, first reading, and I just wanna invite him to the house. Thank you.

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

[Rep. Michael Morgan (Milton)]: I would madam speaker, please help me in welcoming a very special young lady from my hometown. She went to school with my son. They went to birthday parties. She came to our parties, and I would like to welcome her in the house today. Please help me. She's sitting in the gallery.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guest, the member for Milton, please rise and be recognized? Are there any further announcements? Seeing none. Orders of the day. Members I have just an order update for you as things are evolving this afternoon. There are two bills that we will be, bumping to later in the calendar today due to amendments and other meetings taking place. Those two bills are House Bill six zero six, Firearms Protect Procedures and House Bill six forty two, youthful offender proceedings. With that, we will begin with house bill five thirty seven which is an act relating to the right to grow vegetable gardens. The bill was referred to the committee on agriculture, food resiliency and forestry which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Westminster, representative Bos-Lun, will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk/Reading Clerk)]: H five thirty seven, an act relating to the right to grow vegetable gardens.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Westminster.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Westminster)]: Thank you, madam speaker. H five thirty seven, an act relating to the right to grow vegetable gardens can be found on page one two three four, the first item on your house calendar today. Here in Vermont, we have a long standing tradition of growing our own food. Everyone living in Vermont deserves the right to practice this tradition. Gardening and growing your own food are activities that are that are environmentally friendly and enable Vermonters to have some control over producing their own food. Vermonters should not be deprived of growing their own food just because they happen to be a renter or live in a common interest community. H five thirty seven addresses both these situations. I'm going to give you a definition of common interest communities, and then I'll walk you through the bill. A common interest community, also called the CIC, is a form of residential real estate development where owners hold individual title to a unit, a home or condo, but share ownership or maintenance responsibility for common areas. These are governed by a homeowners association, HOA, and funded through mandatory recurring fees for services, maintenance, and amenities. The bill will address common interest communities first. And so I wanted to give you that definition before we started the walkthrough. So I'm gonna start now looking at the first section of the bill. You can see that this initial section is basically a lot of technical language telling you that in the second section, the language that's going to be amended is going to apply back to all condominiums with 12 or more units. So the language is a little bit confusing to understand, but basically it says that all the communities, sorry, all of the communities that had 12 or more units on or before January 2011, which means all condominiums would have this new language apply for all of them. So, it warns you that the language is going to be changed in section two. So, these are the details in section two. Section two will add a new provision within the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act to prohibit any deed restriction or security instrument or other governing documents of common interest or of a common interest community. So you can't prohibit a unit owner from using land reserved if it's the unit owner's exclusive land. If owns that land exclusively, you cannot prohibit him from growing a vegetable garden in it. We define vegetable garden in this section as well as a plot of land where a person cultivates plants for personal consumption or donation and the land and activities on it are not subject to the required agricultural practices. A vegetable garden does not include cultivation of cannabis or any unlawful crops or substances. The second section further states that if approval of the installation of the vegetable garden is required, it must be approved or denied in writing and it gives the association ninety days to review. If the approval is not denied within a ninety day period, the application is deemed approved. This second section also provides that a unit owner is responsible for the vegetable garden, including the costs of installation and maintenance, the costs of water or electricity, and the costs of damage to repair any common or limited common elements due to the installation, maintenance, repair, removal, or replacement of the vegetable garden. This section also provides an association of a common interest community may enact reasonable restrictions on the use of a vegetable garden. This includes reasonable restrictions on the erection and installation of permanent structures requiring that the garden be maintained in good condition, requiring that dead materials be removed and restricting the use of areas held in common, and it also allows the prohibition for the use of pesticides. Finally, in this section, it is provided that an association will provide a written notice of a violation with not less than ten days for the unit owner to correct the violation. If the violation is not corrected, the association may take steps to cure the violation and pass on any costs necessary for correction to the unit owners. The third section regards residential rental agreements. In this section, it's a different kind of gardening we're talking about than in the CICs. It's gardening in portable containers. So in section three, we amend the chapter governing residential rental agreements. This section requires that a landlord allows a tenant to grow vegetable gardens in portable containers approved by the landlord. The landlord may also authorize a tenant to install a vegetable garden on the property other than in portable containers, but this is not required. The section includes similar language to what is included in the previous section regarding what is reasonable in terms of restrictions to impose on a tenant, such as restricting pesticides, requiring the garden be maintained in good condition, requiring that dead plant material be removed. This section also authorizes a landlord to require that the placement of the vegetable garden does not interfere with the maintenance of the dwelling or with parking or create a health or safety hazard. Lastly, the landlord may require the tenant to pay for any water or electricity use, and the landlord may charge a separate security deposit for the installation of a vegetable garden for the purpose of securing against damage or removal of the garden. And the closing portion of this, bill is section four, which is the effective date, and we have it as effective on passage. So, we had, four sorry. Four witnesses came in to testify. A resident from South Burlington who was the person who inspired the bill, a lobbyist for the HOAs from the Community Associations Institute, a member from the or a member of our legislative council, and the director of the Vermont Landlord Association. Our committee supported this bill with a vote of eight zero zero. We believe this is a good bill, and we ask for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on agriculture, food resiliency, and forestry? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. 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 one seventy one which is an act relating to attorney general investigations into a law enforcement officer's use of a firearm. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk/Reading Clerk)]: Page one seventy one. An act relating to attorney general investigations into a law enforcement officer's use of a firearm.

[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. 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 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. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk/Reading Clerk)]: H five nineteen, an act relating to authorizing officers of the town of Randolph Police Department to enroll in group c with the Vermont State Employees Retirement System.

[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 will turn to house bill five thirty six which is an act relating to toxic heavy metals and baby food products. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk/Reading Clerk)]: Age five thirty six, an act relating to toxic heavy metals and baby food products. The

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

[Rep. Brian Smith (Derby)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Yesterday, when a member from Woodstock interrogated me and asked me if we'd heard from industry, and I said we had, and we had. And some of the industry leading manufacturers had no concerns, so we didn't hear from them. What we did hear from the infant nutrition council of America. And although with no concerns with the baby food portion of it, they did have a concern, excuse me, with the infant formula portion and we heard their concerns. The committee worked almost exhaustively to try to placate their concerns, if you will, coming up with triggers that would cause our rule to be enacted after suitable population in The United States enacted the rule. The members of INCA do exhaustive studies on their infant formula and testing to ensure a safe product for the infants out there. And all this amendment does is it ensure that the the mothers and fathers and concerned family members can find those reports and know what the levels are. Thank you, madam.

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

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Fairfax)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I want to thank the member for their clarification. Taking a second to just share a very brief personal story. My daughter was born in the height of COVID and also in the height of the formula shortage. So, it turned out that I was unable to breastfeed and I had gone to a store. I remember being on the phone with my mom and I just broke down because I couldn't feed my child myself, and there wasn't formula available. So I want to take I want to take a second. I want to thank the committee for their extensive work. I want, you know, I I wanna thank Inca for what they do for families, for babies, and I'm just I'm I'm looking forward to the work that the senate's gonna do on this bill as well to ensure that our babies are fed in the most nutritious and safest way.

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

[Rep. James Gregoire (Georgia)]: Thanks, madam speaker. Yes. We I received this letter from one of the manufacturers in Franklin County of infant formula and baby foods. There's a great deal of difference between infant formula, which is the only food babies receive. They don't eat anything else, just formula and baby foods. When a child is old enough to eat baby food, they also get other kinds of food and a variety of food. So it better meets their nutritional needs. I'm disturbed because this manufacturer asks us to hold off on passing this amendment that goes to the bill. They say the the bill is a good one as far as it goes with baby food, but not with infant formula and that we should leave that out. So I'm I'm disappointed that it's it's in there. I did feel a little better when I learned that the bill is gonna receive significant attention in the senate and, probably be fixed over there. Although I don't like having to have the senate fix our stuff. It's it's just anyway, so I intend to vote no, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Westminster.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Westminster)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Many infants rely on formula as their primary source of nutrients as was just said. That's true. For the first four to six months of life, if you're relying exclusively on formula, as a parent, don't you want your formula to not have heavy metals in it? I would think so. It's almost impossible to have formula with that has no heavy metals, but you can have testing that will tell you the levels. And all that we're asking the industry to do is to label the baby food so that parents can make informed choices. We were assured in my committee that there is lots of testing of formula already to make sure that it meets EU standards. That's great. We also got lots of testimony that said that some food is still at levels that are not really safe, And we don't want our babies to be having food that is not really safe. The point of having formula included in this is so that we can sooner have our parents being better informed. We're not trying to make anybody deprived of formula. We are trying to make them more informed about the contents of the formula. We want parents to be informed so they can make the best choices for their babies. There is no safe level of heavy metals in baby food or formula and we want to ensure the levels are as low as possible. The amendment is intentional. It is important. It is something that we need to keep our parents informed, and it's something that will be helpful for our babies in keeping them safe. Our bill and the amendment ensure that parents can make informed decisions that will benefit the health of their children. Our our amendment serves the interests of Vermont and Vermont parents and Vermont babies. Please support it in this third reading.

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

[Rep. James Gregoire (Georgia)]: Thank you madam speaker. May I read from the letter that I received, well about a half an hour ago from the Perrigo company in Georgia?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Georgia)]: Their letters goes on to describe that they manufacture baby food and formula in factory and they talk about work that the FDA is involved in right now. I'll read just part of that letter. The FDA announced its intent to set formula specific action levels as part of its operation historic speed, which I think we heard about operation historic speed on the floor yesterday. An effort we support, the we here is the company, Perrigo. And just recently, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it will publish a report in April 2026 addressing cadmium, mercury, and lead in infant formula, a precursor to setting federal action levels. We hope that you will reconsider the current draft as we believe it is premature to include infant formula into the program. And it is signed by officials there at the Perrigo manufacturer, in the town of Georgia. So, it sounds to me like people who are manufacturing this do in fact have some significant concerns and we ought to follow their advice and hold off, wait till April and then we can go forward after we have that report from the FDA.

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

[Rep. George Till (Jericho)]: Madam Speaker, this bill was intentionally craft crafted with a delay for the pieces that need to be studied a little bit farther and that we need larger states than ours to, take on the role first. And so one of the pieces that I thought was so good about the amendment that was brought forward, which is now part of the bill, is that Vermont, our tiny state of Vermont, isn't going to be the one to start this process, but we are going to be part of the process the minute that two other states or California become the leaders in ensuring that our infant formula is kept to appropriate standards or at least parents know what they're buying, which is so important. In commerce, we spend so much time trying to make sure that our consumers know what they're getting and are protected from, situations that they might otherwise not be aware of. I really appreciate the work that was done on this bill and I strongly support it.

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

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wanna thank the member from Derby and the agriculture agriculture committee for taking this up and doing the hard work. I don't think anybody in this chamber argues with the intent of the bill and the amendments as the member from Jericho said is now all part of the same bill. So I wanna thank them for taking the time. We do have some time in order to make sure that in the future the manufacturers can comply and then will comply. So I wanna thank the members for doing that work and it's very important that we have a balance. Always, it's difficult consumer product safety and manufacturing. We need to strike the right balance, and I think we do it here. Thank you.

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

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I was curious to learn more about baby food production in Vermont, so I quickly searched the Internet and discovered an article from my NBC five. May I read a quote from it?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Perrigo confirmed that it will close its Georgia, Vermont manufacturing facility in 2027 according to messaging from the company's vice president of corporate communications. The plant employs 420 people. The Grand Rapids, Michigan based company said they made the difficult decision to begin winding down operations at the plant because it was no longer cost effective to invest in the building due to the age of the facility and evolving regulatory requirements. Madam speaker, I was, you know, concerned that a Vermont company, had issues with this, But it sounds like the company already plans to close because it opposes regulatory requirements, I see no reason to hesitate protecting our children. Thank you.

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

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk/Reading Clerk)]: Page five fifty. An act relating to gender equity within Vermont's correctional facilities.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Members, it has come to my attention that there is an amendment pending on House Bill five eighty five so that bill will also get bumped to later on in the calendar today. So that takes us to house bill seven thirty three which is an act relating to regulation, to the regulation of franchise agreements. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk/Reading Clerk)]: H seven thirty three, an act relating to the regulation of franchise agreements.

[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 seventy five which is an act relating to creating tools for housing production. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk/Reading Clerk)]: H seven seventy five, an act relating to creating tools for housing production.

[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 eighty seven which is an act relating to crime victim status under the Fair Employment Practices Act. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk/Reading Clerk)]: H eight eight seven, an act relating to crime victim status under the Fair Employment Practices Act.

[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. Ayes up here have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Next is House Bill nine seventeen which is an act relating to military affairs. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk/Reading Clerk)]: H nine seventeen, an act relating to military affairs.

[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. Aye. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Now we'll turn to House Bill nine twenty one which is an act relating to alcoholic beverages. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk/Reading Clerk)]: H921, an act relating to alcoholic beverages.

[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 and preventing chronic absenteeism. Member from Manchester.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Manchester)]: The committee requests a one day delay on action on bill nine h nine thirty.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Manchester moves that we postpone action on house bill nine thirty 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 nine thirty until tomorrow. Next is House Bill nine forty one which is an act relating to municipal regulation of agriculture. Member from Shaftsbury.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: Madam Speaker, I move that we postpone action on h nine forty one for two legislative days.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Shaftsbury moves that we postpone action on house bill nine forty one for two legislative days. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have postponed action on house bill nine forty one until next Tuesday. Next members we will now turn to house bill nine forty two which is an act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects. The bill was introduced by the committee on agriculture, food resiliency, and forestry. A member from Cabot, representative Burke, will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk/Reading Clerk)]: H nine forty two, an act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Cabot.

[Rep. Greg Burtt (Cabot)]: Thank you, madam speaker. H nine forty two, an act related to miscellaneous agricultural subjects. I'll read it section by section. Section one amends six VSA four nine eight one agricultural water train quality training. And you can find the bill on our committee page. Under current law, the agency of agriculture's required agricultural practices rule requires four hours of training every five years for large farm operations, medium farm operations, and certified small farm operations. This section permits the secretary of agriculture to require any farm operator or owner to participate in water quality training when the secretary determines that education is appropriate. And this section repeals mandatory water quality training requirements in the required agricultural practices rule as of 07/01/2026. Section two amends six VSA 4,817, management of non sewage waste. This is on page four of the bill. This section addresses transporting non sewage waste or wastewater materials to farms. Non sewage waste may be used on farms to deposit in a manure pit or as input in a methane digester. Waste materials may be stored on a farm used for land application, deposited in a manure pit, or used in a methane digester. This section adds a definition of waste materials to mean non sewage solid or liquid digestates from certified solid waste facilities or materials approved by the secretary of the agency of natural resources for acceptable use under the solid waste rules. This section adds oversight by the secretary of agriculture of non sewage waste and waste materials regarding composition, laboratory test results for nutrients and contaminants, and the volume of material transported to the farm. Section three amends six VSA chapter 37 unit pricing, and this is on page six of the bill. Six part six eighty purpose. This section amending title six chapter 37 is meant to provide accurate and consistent pricing information at retail establishments. This section incorporates national standards for weights and measures as adopted by the National Council on Weights and Measures to ensure consistent display of pricing. And then we turn to six eighty one definitions. This section sets out definitions to clarify this what the statute is meant to regulate. This chapter aims to primarily regulate pricing and labeling for consumer commodities sold at retail establishments. The definition of consumer commodities broaden to include any product or commodity except for prescription drugs or food sold by a restaurant or made to order. The definition of retail establishment is added. Retail establishment means a store that sells consumer commodities to individuals when they are physically present to inspect, select, and purchase product except when a store is primarily engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises or is primarily engaged in a specialty specialty trade that the secretary determines would be unreasonable to regulate as a retail establishment. This section also differentiates between unit price and total selling price. The chapter will require disclosure of both types of prices. The unit price is the price per standard unit of a consumer commodity as set forth by the National Council on Weights and Measures. The total selling price is the price assigned to a consumer commodity. And then part six eight two, consumer information required. This section requires that any retail establishment that sells a consumer commodity disclose the accurate total selling price and unit price of the commodity. Part six eight three, means of disclosure. This section requires retail establishments to disclose the unit price and total selling price in accordance with national standards. This section provides criteria for displaying the prices including location, size, and description of the commodity. The total selling price excludes any deposit required as part of the price. And finally, this section prohibit prohibits the use of electronic shelf labels to increase prices when a retail establishment is open to the public except to correct errors. Six eight three a required compliance and enforcement. The section states that violations of this chapter are subject to enforcement actions. Six eight five secretary's powers. The section authorizes the secretary of agriculture to exempt any class of retail establishment if the sale of consumer commodities is into incidental to that retail establishment or compliance with this chapter is unreasonable. The secretary may adopt rules to administer this chapter. And finally, this section removes the requirement for the secretary to adopt rules that set standards for what commodities will be regulated, how to calculate unit pricing, and how to disclose unit pricing. These standards are now set out in statute. And six eight six, exemptions. This section contains unit price requirement exemptions. These exemptions do not apply to requirements related to labeling, calculating, and disclosing total selling price unless otherwise stated. The unit price requirements do not apply to a retail store of less than 7,000 square feet. This exemption does not apply to retail establishments of a company having two or more locations regardless of square footage. The section also does not apply to consumer commodities that are commingled in a sale bin marked for clearance when the unit price is identical to the total selling price, seasonal decorations, and labels on beverages subject to the federal alcoholic Administration Act. The total selling price requirements of this chapter do not apply when all items in a retail establishment have the same total selling price. And part six eight seven penalty. This section adopts penalties authorized in title six sections fifteen, sixteen, and 17. Those sections provide for penalties that that shall not exceed $5,000. Individuals have the right to appeal any penalty issued by the secretary of agriculture. Currently, the penalty for violating this chapter is a fine of up to $500. Section four, the effective date. This act shall take effect on 07/01/2026. Your house committee on agriculture, food resiliency, and forestry heard testimony from a board member of the Vermont Retail and Grocers Association, water protection advocate of the Lake Champlain Committee, general counsel, agency of agriculture food and markets, agricultural weights and measure specialist of the agency of agriculture food and markets, solid waste program manager, waste management and prevention division, department of environmental conservation, the chief of weights and measures, Vermont Agency of Agriculture Food Markets, and legislative council. The committee on agriculture, forestry, and food resiliency asks for your support.

[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 take up house bill two ninety four which is an act relating to commissionary and telecommunication prices in state correctional facilities and fair compensation for incarcerated labor. 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 Montpelier, representative Casey, will speak for the committee. And then affecting the revenue of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on ways and means, which recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on corrections and institutions. The member from Barrie City, representative will speak for the 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 corrections and institutions. The member from Underhill, representative Squirrel will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk/Reading Clerk)]: H two ninety four, an act relating to commissary and telecommunications prices in state correctional facilities and fair compensation for incarcerated labor.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Montpelier.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Madam speaker, h two ninety four is a bill that does two things. It directs a study of correctional telecommunications and a study of wages for incarcerated individuals. This bill does not implement sweeping mandates. Instead, it ensures that before we take major action in either of these areas, we are working from clear data, real cost estimates, and a full understanding of the impacts. During testimony, the committee heard the current system creates real barriers to basic communications between incarcerated individuals and their young, loved ones. Currently, incarcerated workers in Vermont earn roughly between 25¢ and a dollar and 25¢ an hour. Phone calls cost about 3¢ per minute. Video calls about 16 per minute, and messages about 25¢ each. Even modest use of these services can really add up over time. So on telecom, there's real evidence that maintaining family contacts improves outcomes, including reduced recidivism and better entry success. We also really heard that the ones sort of shouldering this burden, are the families, many of whom are low income and paying just to keep in touch, with the folks who are incarcerated. Some states have moved towards free telecommunications and have seen some upfront costs and operational changes, including increased usage, but we have seen that these generally tend to stabilize over time. Similarly on wages, we took a deep look at it and and really saw there are some ethical and policy concerns about current compensation levels, but also real questions about the budget impacts if those changes were to be made immediately. So this bill sweats sits squarely at that tension and responds appropriately, and now I'll take you through it. Section one, the intent of the bill. The bill begins with a clear statement of legislative intent recognizing four goals, supporting rehabilitation by maintaining personal and family connections, reducing barriers to communication during incarceration, moving away from reliance on for profit correctional systems, and ensuring future policy decisions are grounded in data and fiscal analyses. This framing reflects what we heard consistently in testimony. Communication and reentry supports matter, but implementation must be done responsibly. Section two, a telecommunications study, h two ninety four directs the Department of Corrections to produce a comprehensive report evaluating options for providing no cost telecommunication services. The report would include a full description of the current system, including contracts, usage, and costs, analysis of alternative models, including nonprofit or public utility approaches, detailed fiscal impacts, including start up and transition costs, ongoing operational costs, budget impacts, and usage changes, and an assessment of potential benefits, including effects on safety and facility operations, and impacts on rehabilitation and maintaining support systems. It also requires constant consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, families, service providers, and justice reform organizations so that the analysis reflects real world experience. One of those stakeholders, just to be clear, is CoreCivic, our private contractor down in Mississippi, who we thought those, inmates out of state could really benefit with increased ties to family. Timeline on this is we're looking for a couple draft reports in September and November 2026 and a final report 12/01/2026. Brings us to section three, the incarcerated wage study. The bill directs DOC, the Department of Corrections, to evaluate current wages wages for incarcerated individuals, including what people are currently paid. We talked about that before a bit. What types of work are performed, and for comparison, what it would cost if we had state employees or other contractors doing the work that is currently done in corrections. So this is an important step given that current wages are very low and there are open questions about the fiscal impacts and system designs. Section four, just the effective date, effective upon passage. And I'll just close by saying it's important to emphasize this bill does not immediately require free phone calls. It does not set new wage levels today. It does not change contracts or pricing structures immediately. Instead, it ensures that before we make these decisions, we have enough information to make an intelligent decision. H two ninety four ensures that when this body returns to these issues, and and our committee is really committed to doing so, we'll come back with real numbers, clear options, and a full understanding of the impacts on safety, budgets, and outcome. We heard from some folks, the chief executive officer of Emilio, pretty much half the staff of the Department of Corrections, including the financial manage manager, executive director of finance, the deputy commissioner, chief of operations, the executive director of policy and strategic initiatives, the facility operation manager, the financial director, and the communications director. We also heard from the bill sponsor, an associate fiscal officer at JFO, legislative council, director of advocacy for the prison policy initiative, and some students at UVM who did a report on this. Committee The on Corrections and Institutions unanimously recommends passage with an eleven zero zero vote, and we ask for your support. And

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

[Unknown representative from Barre City (Ways and Means reporter)]: Madam speaker, I can never decide whether speaking after my legislative mentor is a privilege or a burden, but nonetheless, affecting the revenues of the state, h two ninety four was referred to your committee on ways and means, which recommends that the bill ought to pass as amended by House Corrections and Institutions. Our report can be found on page twelve forty one of today's calendar. As the member from Corrections and Institutions mentioned, these are studies that are included in the bill. As such, there is no fiscal impact on the revenues of the state, so there is no fiscal note. Your committee on ways and means heard from legislative council, office of legislative council, the associate fiscal officer from joint fiscal, and recommends that the bill ought to pass on a vote of eleven zero zero, and we ask for your support.

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

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Underhill)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Your house appropriations committee reviewed h two ninety four with legislative council and the joint physical office. There are no appropriations in H two ninety four and our committee offer no amendments to the bill. The House Committee on Appropriations favorably recommends H two ninety four as amended by House Corrections and Institutions on a

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: vote of

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Underhill)]: ten zero one. We ask for the body support. Thank you.

[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? Member from Burlington.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, may I quickly interrogate the presenter of the bill?

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

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, in in testimony on the bill, did the committee hear from incarcerated or formerly incarcerated individuals?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Madam speaker, we did not in regards to this particular bill. We have over the course of this session spoken to incarcerated individuals who have raised this as a concern?

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, is there a reason why incarcerated or formerly incarcerated individuals are not named as a stakeholder that shall be consulted with by the Department of Corrections when preparing the report?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Madam speaker, I believe it is our hope that the Department of Corrections, will consult with incarcerated individuals and stakeholders that go beyond the ones listed on this. There'd be a number of parties, and I would agree with the interrogator there that it's vital to have their voice at the table.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Thank you, member. Madam speaker, I'm I'm concerned that we continue to to leave incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals out of discussions around reform of the correction system since they are the people who have the least power and the most experience. And although I see language saying representative of families or organizations representing families of incarcerated Vermonters, and I see language that any other stakeholder or subject matter expert identified by the Commissioner of Corrections. I do think there's a benefit when the body is clear about our expectations of who should be included. Those concerns aside, I support this bill. This is a great step in the right direction, and I thank the committee for for passing it. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on corrections and institutions. Member from Rutland City.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Rutland City)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I appreciate my fellow colleague from Burlington for bringing up that point. And with that, I hope that the Department of Corrections will also receive the input from victims also. Thank you.

[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. 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. Next is house bill four ten which is an act relating to the calculation of recidivism and other related criminology measures. 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 Essex Junction, representative Dolan will speak for the committee. And then carrying an appropriation, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations, which recommends that the report of the committee on judiciary be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Underhill, representative Squirrel, will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk/Reading Clerk)]: H four ten, an act relating to the calculation of recidivism and other related criminology measures.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Essex Junction.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: Madam speaker, h four ten, as amended by your house judiciary committee, creates a standardized definition of recidivism in Vermont statute and directs the Vermont Statistical Analysis Center, also referred to a SAC, to produce annual reports on key criminal justice system indicators. H four ten improves consistency in how Vermont measures recidivism recidivism and provides Vermont with clear, comprehensive data on trends in our criminal justice system. Recidivism is the measure of when an individual convicted of a crime commits a new offense. Currently, the definition of recidivism in Vermont is outdated and arbitrary, focusing on a narrow section of individuals. Due to the limited scope of the current measure, data related to recidivism is not effectively used in Vermont, criminal data analysis. H four ten brought stakeholders together to revamp the definition of recidivism in order to make it relevant and usable in future studies and legislation related to criminal justice in Vermont. H four ten also creates a new chapter in title 13, criminology measures. This chapter establishes a number of annual reports which will be generated by the Vermont Statistical Analysis Center related to measures such as bail rates, recidivism rates, and arrest and conviction data. Some may remember the passage of s 14 in 2023, now act 40, which launched an initial criminal justice data report. With the success of that report, h 10 provides a long term plan for maintaining related reports. This is critical for future legislators to make data driven decisions related to our criminal justice system. Now I will provide a brief brief review of the sections of the bill. You can follow along starting on page twelve forty one of today's calendar. Section one creates a new chapter in title 13, establishing a statewide definition of recidivism and directing the Vermont Statistical Analysis Center SAC to produce annual reports on several criminal justice indicators. Subsection eighty one twenty one defines recidivism as a new criminal conviction following a prior conviction. The date of arraignment for the new offense is used as a proxy for when the offense occurred. The recidivism calculation period begins when an individual is released from incarceration or sentenced to a noncustodial sentence. Subsection eighty one twenty two requires Vermont SAC to submit annual reports by April 1 of each year to relevant legislative committees. The reports must include bail rates and information on individuals held pretrial in Vermont correctional facilities, recidivism rates calculated over three and five year periods, arrests and clearance rates organized by offense type using national incident based reporting system categories, information on the 20 crimes with the highest number of convictions, including sentencing data and total years of probation and incarceration imposed. This section also requires the inclusion of demographic information when available in direct state and local agencies to provide data necessary for SAC to complete the reports. Section two repeals the current statutory definition of recidivism used by the Department of Corrections as the definition is now established in title 13. This change was reviewed and supported by the House Corrections and Institutions Committee. Section three removes references to the prior recidivism definition and related reporting requirements that are replaced by the new definition and reporting structure in title 13. Section four appropriates a total of $25,000 from the general fund in fiscal year twenty twenty seven to support the preparation of the annual reports required in the bill. Lastly, section five states that h four ten shall take effect on 07/01/2026. The committee heard testimony from the following, office of legislative council, director of policy and legislative affairs from the attorney general's office, general counsel of the governor's office, director of research, crime research group, which is Vermont's current SAC, director of research and data analytics, department of corrections, executive director of policy and strategic initiatives, department of corrections, legislative attorney at the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, defender general, deputy defender general, the executive director of Crime Research Group, deputy division director of the Council of State Governments Justice Center, the chief superior judge, and as I mentioned, house corrections and institutions also reviewed the bill. In summary, h four ten, as amended by house judiciary, establishes consistent statewide measures for recidivism and other criminal justice indicators so that Vermont has clear, more reliable information to inform policy decisions as we continue our goals to address public safety and criminal justice reform. With the long term vision of h four ten, Vermont will have a solid foundation to build on these efforts. H four ten as amended passed out on a vote of ten zero one, and your committee on judiciary asked for your support.

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

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Underhill)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Your house appropriations committee reviewed H four ten with legislative council and the joint fiscal office as a result of our discussion. House appropriations office one instance of amendment related to section four. The amendment can be found on page twelve forty four in today's calendar. In the first instance of amendment, the words to the Department of Public Safety for contracted related support are inserted after general fund in place of Vermont's statistical analysis analysis center. We determined that funding for the 25, zero for the four reports should flow through the Department of Public Safety to the Vermont Statistical Analysis Center. The House Committee on Appropriations favorably recommends, H410 as amended by House Judiciary and further amended by House Appropriations on a vote of eleven zero zero and we ask for the body support. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The first question is, shall the report of the committee on judiciary be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? Member nope. Yes. We need the straw poll. Member from Essex Junction.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: Yes. I I knew, madam speaker, you're getting to that. So we did take a straw poll in house judiciary on house appropriations amendment, and we found it favorable. Seven zero four.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on judiciary be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the report of the committee on judiciary. Now the question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary as amended? 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 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 three which is an act relating to healthcare financial transactions and clinical decision making. The bill was referred to the committee on healthcare which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. Member from Essex, representative Black will speak for the committee. Then Karen and appropriation, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on health care. The member for Morristown, representative will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk/Reading Clerk)]: Page five eighty three. An act relating to health care financial transactions and clinical decision making.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Essex.

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm bringing to you H five eighty three which is an act relating to health care financial transactions and clinical decision making. This is a strike all amendment and you can find the language of the bill on page twelve forty four of today's house calendar. Increased health care consolidation over the past few decades has offered the opportunity for corporate actors to become increasingly involved in health care. Between 2012 and 2021, private equity acquisition of Just Physician Practices has increased by 645%. This rise in corporate health care ownership comes with the need to protect patients from concerns around its negative impact on patient safety, quality, and access to care. Corporate ownership is also associated with increased costs, exacerbating the healthcare affordability issues that Vermonters are already struggling with. Vermont is one of only a handful of states that does not have a corporate practice of medicine doctrine in statute to prohibit corporations, such as private equity firms from controlling how providers treat patients. Vermont also does not require medical practices and facilities to meaningful meaningfully disclose if they're owned, controlled, or affiliated with private equity firms. This makes it effectively impossible for regulators and policymakers to assess the scope and scale of private equity's impact on Vermont's health care system. Currently, there is also effectively no enforcement mechanism to deter corporations from exploiting patients and providers for private profit. As a result, Vermont patients and providers are acutely vulnerable to exploitation at the worst possible time when our health care system is more fragile and expensive than at any other point in our history. Passing H five eighty three aims to protect Vermont's health care system through three main levers. It bans the corporate practice of medicine in Vermont's statute. This doctrine exists in many states. It establishes that clinical decision making and treatment decisions are exclusively in the hands of health care providers, licensed health care providers. It is meant to safeguard against non licensed individuals or entities such as private equity firms from exerting control or influence over health care delivery. It has a reporting piece, it requires medical providers and facilities to provide detailed financial and ownership control information to the Green Mountain Care Board if and only if they are controlled, owned, or invested in by private equity or hedge funds. It has an enforcement piece which establishes a strong enforcement mechanism to ensure that providers can take meaningful legal action if their ability to ethically practice medicine is interfered with or controlled by corporate interests. And now I'll walk you through the bill. It's very two sections. Section one adds a new chapter into title 18 entitled clinical decision making. Ninety seven seventy one are definitions. This section adds several definitions to the new chapter, including definitions of hedge fund, private equity group, and management service organizations. It adds ninety seven seventy two, which are limitations on control over clinical decision making by private equity group or hedge fund. It specifies that the purpose of this section is to ensure that clinical decision making and treatment decisions are exclusively in the hands of healthcare providers and to prevent non licensed private equity groups, hedge funds, and others from exerting influence or control over the delivery of health care services. It prohibits a private equity group or hedge fund that is involved with a health care facility in Vermont from interfering with health care providers' judgment in making health care decisions or from exercising control over many aspects of patient care, including setting prices for health care providers' services, making decisions about coding and billing of diagnoses and procedures, and selecting the medical equipment and supplies that they use. It specifies that the section does not prohibit an unlicensed person from providing nonclinical administrative services to assisting or consulting with a healthcare facility as long as a healthcare provider retains ultimate authority over clinical decisions and the delivery of care. It allows a health care provider aggrieved by the actions of a private equity group or hedge fund in violation of this section to bring an action in Superior Court. It adds ninety seven seventy three, which is reporting and of ownership and control of certain health care entities. It requires that all health care facilities and management service organizations to report to the Green Mountain Care Board by 07/01/2026 on whether a private equity group or hedge fund is held in ownership or investment interest as of 06/01/2026. Health care facilities and management service organizations that had private equity group or hedge fund involvement as of 06/01/2026 must submit information to the Green Mountain Care Board regarding ownership and financial involvement, an organizational chart, and the most recent year's profit and loss statement and balance sheet. After 07/01/2026, a health care facility or management service organization must provide the information to the board anytime that it engages in a new or modified involvement with a private equity group or hedge fund. There are exemptions from the reporting for nursing homes, health care staffing companies, federally qualified health centers, and entities that offer only telehealth services in the state of Vermont or to Vermonters. Information provided under this section is public information except that an individual health care provider's social security number and personal contact information and the profit and loss statements and balance sheets are exempt from the Public Records Act and must be kept confidential. A health care facility or management service organization that knowingly fails to report is liable for a civil penalty of up to $50 per day. It fails to report up to a maximum of $10,000 per year. It makes material misrepresentation in its reports liable for a civil penalty up to $25,000 for each material misrepresentation. Ninety seven seventy four adds sharing of ownership information to improve transparency. It requires that the Green Mountain Care Board to post a report on its website about the information reported by health care facilities and management service organizations with ownership or investment involvement from private equity groups and hedge funds. The information is public except for an individual's health care provider's Social Security number. It allows the Green Mountain Care Board to share information with the attorney general, secretary of state, and other state aid and officials to reduce duplication in reporting requirements and facilitate oversight of enforcement. And finally, section two are the effective dates. The act would take effect on 07/01/2026. Then the amendment would also change the title of the bill to an act relating to clinical decision making. I want to make very clear what H five eighty three does not do. H five eighty three does not ban private equity in Vermont. It doesn't restrict who can invest in our health care system. It doesn't prevent providers from contracting with private companies to help them with billing or administrative tasks. Passing H five eighty three is about protecting provider autonomy so that they can deliver the best care that they can for Vermonters. This bill ensures that patient care, not private profit, must be at the center of clinical health care decision making in Vermont. Medical care must be treated with dignity and care without pressure to cut corners, skimp on supplies and nursing staff, or forego best practice. H five eighty three directly aligns with Vermont's principles for health care reform, which clearly states Vermont must ensure universal access to and coverage for high quality medically necessary health care services for all Vermonters. This bill is an agreement that resulted from over a year and a half of really difficult and complex work between the health care advocates office, health care provider organizations, the Green Mountain Care Board, and the attorney general. And I really do wanna thank them for their collaboration and their work on this. Your committee on health care approved this bill on a vote of nine two zero, and I urge you to pass this bill to protect Vermont from corporate medicine. The witnesses we heard from were general counsel for the Green Mountain Care Board, executive director of the Vermont Medical Society, the deputy chief counsel for the Office of Legislative Counsel, the president of Vermont Bankers Association, the director of policy and legislative affairs for the attorney general's office, the co executive director of Battenkill Valley Health Center, senior research and campaign coordinator for the private equity stakeholder project, chief legal chief health care advocate from Vermont Legal Aid, a researcher from Brown University, dermatologist from Integrated Dermatology, senior vice president of policy and strategy for the Vermont Association of Hospital and Hospitals Health Systems, Senior Director for the National Association of State Health Policy, NASHP, Executive Vice President of Hospital Operations for Ovation Healthcare, the Executive Director for the Vermont Healthcare Association, the senior vice president of policy and strategy for by by state primary care association, a health policy analyst from Vermont Legal Aid, a lobbyist from MMR on behalf of the Vermont Healthcare Association, the executive director of Health First, researcher from Brown University, a second researcher from Brown University, and associate professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a registered nurse, and the head of state government relations at ATA Action. Again, your health care committee supported this bill on a vote of nine two zero, and we really urge you to vote yes on age five eighty three.

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

[Rep. David Yacovone (Morristown)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Your committee on appropriations met and carefully reviewed this bill. We took testimony from the chair of your house health care committee, legislative council, and the Joint Fiscal Office. Our determination is that there is no impact on the appropriations of the state of Vermont. The vote in the committee was ten one zero, and we ask the members to support this bill. Thank you.

[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? Member from Castleton.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Can I interrogate the presenter of the bill, please?

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

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I may have missed this in the prepared remarks, but I'm wondering if there were any private equity firms or hedge funds that the committee received testimony from.

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: We received written testimony, I believe.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: Okay. Thank you, member. And I'm curious beyond the definitions that are included in the legislation itself, if the member can distinguish between hedge funds and private equity firms based on the deployment of capital strategies between those two entities.

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: I believe definitions are in the bill.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: I understand that. And I'm asking beyond the definitions included in the bill specific to deployment of capital if the member can tell me the distinction between hedge funds and private equity firms.

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: I would need to consult with legislative council.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The house will stand in recess for a couple minutes. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? Member from Essex.

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: Is this home? Yeah. So this isn't a legal question. It's more of an investment banking question, and I do not have financial acumen. However and it's not relevant to this bill, my knowledge of distinctions around banking practices. If the member would like an answer to that question, I'm happy to reach out to the Vermont Bankers Association, and maybe I can set them up before third reading so he could get an answer to his question.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: I I don't think it's an investment banking question. I think it's a pretty practical question, madam speaker, about how capital that these firms are using or investing in the state of Vermont. I think it's actually a very prudent question. So I I disagree with the sentiment from the from the from the member. I think beyond the distinction between private equity and hedge funds, I think there's also a very fair question of whether family office firms would be encompassed in this legislation as well.

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: Again, I do not have financial acumen and it's not relevant to the bill.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: I would disagree with the member on that point. And I would also go even further to say whether venture capital firms and growth equity firms are captured by this legislation. And again, I think it is entirely relevant because if we are going to be legislating regulation on any of the firms that are choosing to do business in the state of Vermont

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk/Reading Clerk)]: Point of order, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Brattleboro. What is your point of order?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Relevance of the question to the bill at hand and also the purpose of a question, madam speaker, is to obtain information not provided to the body.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Can I see the members at the podium, please? The house is standing recess. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? Member from Brattleboro, I find your point of order well taken. The member from Essex did indicate that she would be coming back with information around entities to which the bill applies. And I'd like to remind members that interrogation is limited to asking questions. The interrogating member should make any comments in the response to a question received after the member has completed their interrogation. The member from Castleton has the floor. I

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: do madam speaker. Thank you. Have two more questions for the, for the presenter of

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: the bill.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: So one of the things I I I didn't hear you know, I understand that private equity firms and hedge funds were only, provided written testimony for the bill, but I'm curious if the member can provide examples of these firms operating in Vermont currently?

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: I actually need to correct the record because I had forgotten about one of the witnesses that I did list on the, list of witnesses. I believe that Ovation, I wanna get their name right. Ovation Healthcare is a management service organization that is private equity.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: Thank you, member. I I appreciate the additional context. So I I assume that you'll get back to me with a list of firms that are currently operating in the state of Vermont.

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: No. I cannot give you a list of firms that are operating in the state of Vermont because we have no ability to know ownership structures, which is why this bill why we are doing this bill. This bill will create the ability for us to know how private equity and investments are working in this in the sphere of health care within the state of Vermont. Currently, we have no knowledge.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: I thank the member. So am I correct in understanding that the the member and the committee do not know how which firms this bill would actually impact if passed?

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: We do not.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: That thank you, member. And my last question is, do you I mean, granted it it it's my understanding that you don't have the list of firms, but is there any evidence that these firms are currently operating in Vermont?

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: I'm sorry. I'm not quite sure I understood the question. Can you repeat that?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: Yes. Is there any evidence of private equity or hedge funds operating in Vermont's health care system at present?

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: Yes. There is.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: And which firms are those?

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: I'm not sure. I I'm I'm sorry. I may need to ask the question. Is it appropriate for me to name firms that have not provide testimony or

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member it is.

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: I can tell you the the dermatologist that we spoke with is integrated dermatology, and the name of the private equity company that owns them I think is Integrated Dermatologists. And in the long term care space, We do know that Genesis Healthcare operates in the long term care space. Although we did not take testimony from Genesis.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: I I think the member and is Genesis considered a private equity firm or a hedge fund?

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: I believe it's private equity.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: Okay. And and my last question on this line of questioning is we understand that there there are a couple instances or a couple examples of these firms actually operating in the state of Vermont. During the members introduction and explanation of the legislation, they mentioned that the concern about non licensed professionals operating at these firms and I'm curious if there's any evidence of non licensed professionals practicing in the state of Vermont.

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: I don't believe that I indicated that non licensed providers are practicing and making clinical decisions, but there are non licensed providers who are making clinical decisions that do not practice?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: I'm not I'm not quite sure I follow that.

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: I'm I'm frankly not quite sure I understand the question, madam speaker. It's it was a bit circuitous. Do you think you could unravel that for me a bit?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: I I don't I I think it was spoken quite plainly, but I'm happy to rearticulate whether you believe that there are any non licensed professionals currently practicing at private equity or hedge fund owned practices in the state of Vermont. I don't know how to put it more simply than that.

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: There are not unlicensed, nonlicensed practitioners practicing medicine. But there are non licensed providers making medical decisions for licensed practitioners.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Castleton)]: I I thank the member and appreciate, the indulgence on the questions, madam speaker, and look forward to getting more clarity ahead of third reading on the impacted firms of the legislation.

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

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I rise in support of h five eighty three. State health care systems across the country are increasingly fragile and therefore vulnerable to private corporate interests that promise fiscal stability but have across the country prompted the collapse of entire hospital systems and practices. According to the testimony of many national experts in the medical and academic fields, Vermont does not have adequate safeguards on the corporate practice of medicine. This bill offers a very very basic safeguards after long active engagement with providers and the health care advocate. I'm proud to vote yes today.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Burlington.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I'd like to share some information, from the health care committees to, rec written record. For any members who have questions about the landscape of private equity in Vermont, we had an excellent presentation on 01/30/2026 from Yasha Sweeney Singh, a PhD and MPA from Brown University. In this in this presentation, we received some information that provides some of the answers to questions we've heard here today. For example, on one of their slides, they report that there's a private equity firm operating in Vermont called Baymark. And just to give an example, that of private equity firms in Vermont, 57% of our opioid treatment programs are currently operated by private equity firms in Vermont. And we heard testimony that what they do is they, once these firms take control of a practice, the first thing they do is they cut psychotherapy and counseling services, which are necessary for people to transition in recovery from medication assisted treatment to being free from medication. After they cut this counseling, they they will also increase methadone doses to the maximum allowable amounts. And then they require urine screens to the maximum allowable amounts, whether they're medically necessary or not. So what we heard is an extractive practice that keeps people hooked on a system that's making private equity firms money versus promoting, truly promoting recovery over the trajectory of someone's life. So that's one example of private equity practices in Vermont that are not in the best interest of Vermonters that we heard clear testimony about and anyone who'd like to see more. I encourage them to look at doctor Singh's testimony on 01/30/2026. One other statistic that stands out in this testimony that we according to Doctor Singh, 0% of our hospitals are currently affiliated with private equity. We do not know how many physician practices. 25% of our nursing homes and 57% of opioid treatment programs. So hopefully that information helps members better understand the gravity of the problem at hand. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question 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. Aye. 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. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Members, we will now turn to house bill six sixty which is an act relating to fiscal year 2027 opioid abatement special fund appropriations. The bill was referred to the committee on human services which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Rutland City, representative McGuire will speak for that committee and carrying an appropriation, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the report of the committee on human services be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Burlington, representative Bluemle will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (House Clerk/Reading Clerk)]: Age six sixty, an act relating to fiscal year twenty twenty seven opioid abatement special fund appropriations.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Rutland City.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Rutland City)]: Madam speaker, house bill six sixty, an act relating to fiscal year two thousand twenty seven appropriations from the opioid abatement special fund and the substance misuse prevention special fund. H six sixty directs Vermont's opioid excuse me, opioid settlement dollars into evidence based actions that improve health, stable stabilize families, and strengthen communities across our state. The bill invests in treatment access, recovery housing, harm reduction, reentry supports, and youth prevention while embedding oversight, sustainability, and accountability into how these settlement dollars are used. The legislation reflects the work of the Beaumont Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee which was established to ensure that settlement funds are allocated transparently in alignment with statutory purpose. This year, the committee reviewed 67 funding applications, each representing a program aimed at reducing overdose deaths and strengthening recovery pathways. The appropriations in age six sixty reflect these priorities while also ensuring fiscal discipline and long term planning. Just wanna take a couple minutes to walk through each section of the bill, how we appropriated it. That way the house can clearly see what was funded, who receives it, and why these investments matter. Section one, the appropriation from the opioid abatement special fund. First, age six sixty direct settlement funds to agency delivering high impact services statewide. The bill provides 4 and $55,000 to the Department of Health to support 26 outreach and case management positions within the preferred provider network. These staff engage individuals with substance use disorder and police barracks, shelter, social services agencies, and other community settings. The intent of the general assembly is that this funding be treated as an annual support so as long as the fund remains sufficient, recognizing the value of frontline engagement and early connection to care. Bill allocates $1.6 for certified recovery residences recognized by the Vermont Alliance for Recovery Residents. Stable housing remains one of the strongest predictors of successful reentry recovery, reentry, and these funds support structured, accountable, sober environments with peer support. Legislative attend again signals annual funding as resources allow. Eight hundred and fifty five thousand is dedicated to syringe service programs statewide, supporting a proven public health intervention that reduces infectious disease, transmission connects individuals to treatment and wound care and lowers long term health care costs. The bill provides 1,100,000 to the Department of Corrections, repair recovery coaches and correctional facilities, and probation and parole offices. These funds may not be used for administrative expenses. Payer support reduces overdose risk following release, supports reentry planning, and strengthens continuum of care and critical transition points. 250,000 is appropriated to the Office of Economic Opportunity for shelter based harm reduction and support programs. This includes transportation recovery appointments, clinical nursing services. These investments integrate recovery pathways into emergency and transitional housing settings. Page six sixty also expands recovery housing capacity through $900,000 for new NARR level three or high recovery beds statewide. An additional $300,000 target to specific regions including Brattleboro, Middlebury, Addison, Randolph, Chester, Saint Albans, and other identified communities with demonstrated gaps in capacity. The bill also includes two for 48 the prevent program enabling EMS providers to administer buprenorphine after Naloxone reversal. This approach reduces repeat overdose risk and increase the likelihood that individuals are connected to treatment following emergency responses. 35,000 appropriate appropriation supports transitional housing at Rutland Mental Health Services providing room and board assistance during early stabilization following treatment or crisis. 237,646 supports Springfield Project Action Regional Public Safety Enhancement teams serving Bennington, Springfield, Brattleboro, St. Johnsbury, and Central Vermont. These coordinated strength and collaboration among law enforcement, recovery providers, EMS, and social services through data tracking, meaning facilitation, outreach, and sustainable planning. Sections two and three of the bill are amendments to prior year appropriations. H six sixty also makes technical adjustments to early appropriations to align funds with current needs. The bill revises FY 02/23 allocation of 1,056,000 to expand satellite medication dosing locations including in Addison County, Eastern And Southern Vermont and within the Department of Corrections operated facility. These changes improved geographic access to medication for opioid use disorder and reduced transportation barriers. The bill retains 500,000 for a second clinic satellite addressing ongoing demand in Northwest Vermont. It also adjusts the wound care telehealth pilot to 91,712 and supporting drop in consultation and wound care specialists to prevent serious complications associated with injection drug use. Section four is a repeal of the FY twenty five one time appropriation. Section four repeals a prior 1,000,001 time appropriation from community based stabilization beds, allowing the state to refocus settlement dollars on initiatives that demonstrate sustainability and long term impact rather than a one time capacity expansion. Section five and six, the governance and oversight. H six sixty strengthens oversight of settlement spending by expanding the duties of the opioid settlement advisory committee. The committee is required to consult with individuals with lived experience, frontline professionals, recovery coalitions, and equity partners, and to require sustainable plans for all ongoing funding proposals. Additionally, for FY '28, the committee will pause acceptance of new proposals, except those already designated for annual funding. This pause allows for a deliberate evaluation of outcomes, effectiveness, and long term viability of previously funded programs, ensuring that the settlement dollars produce measurable and lasting results. Section seven, Substance Misuse Prevention Special Fund. This bill also invests in youth prevention and early intervention. Funding includes 288,935 for Elevate Youth Services in Barrie to operate a low barrier drop in teen center providing food, mentorship, peer counseling, prevention, programming, and connections to treatment. 124999 supports Greater Falls Connections, expanding youth engagement and prevention staffing to meet rising regional need. 200,000 is allocated to Interxion Friends for Change in Wyndham County, supported integrated access to therapy, housing, crisis service, medical care, recovery, and employment supports for vulnerable youth. Finally, $26,006.97 funds for the Winooski Partnership for Prevention, delivering medicine safety education to elementary students with family engagement in a culturally responsive setting. Section eight is the effective date. This act will take effect 07/01/2026. Your House Human Services Committee took witnesses from the following legislative counsel, office of legislative counsel, Principal Fiscal Analysis, Analyst, wow, that was a new word, Joint Fiscal Office, Commissioner, Department of Health, Principal Assistant, Department of Health, Policy Director, Department of Health, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Department of Child and Families, Vice Chair of the Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee, and a representative from Action Circles. Your house committee on human services found h six six sixty favorable with amendment of a vote ten zero one. Madam speaker, just quickly, you know, the opioid crisis has touched every town in our community, and we know that. And h six sixty represents strong investments in recovery residencies, harm reduction, shelter based clinical supports, EMS training, peer coaching and corrections, and youth prevention. And we do so with strong oversight and fiscal responsibility at its core. I respectfully ask that this house advance bill age six sixty so we can get these monies on out there and meet Vermonters where they're at and help build those durable pathways to recovery and prevention across the state. Thank you.

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

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, our committee thanks human services, for its work on h six sixty and proposes four instances of amendment that begin on page twelve fifty seven in today's calendar. First, we consolidated all appropriations in the bill through the opioid abatement special fund. As introduced, four prevention related initiatives totaling approximately $640,000 were funded through the Substance Misuse Prevention Fund. While this makes sense as all four initiatives are prevention related, that fund is fully committed in the governor's FY twenty seven budget. As a result, we shifted those programs to be supported with opioid settlement funds. Second in section four a, the amendment responds to the Human Services Committee's interest in evaluating the use and effectiveness of the Substance Misuse Prevention Fund. In it, we require the Department of Health to review prior appropriations from the fund and provide recommendations to the advisory committee and relevant, general assembly committees of jurisdiction on, both funds and how they should be used in future years. Third, we included the opioid settlement advisory committee in reviewing whether the opioid settlement fund is an appropriate source to support past programs, initiatives, and perhaps identify other sources of funding including base in the future. The fourth instance of amendment was proposed by the joint fiscal office to make with budget language. We voted h six sixty as amended out of the committee on a vote of ten zero one, and we ask for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the first question is, shall the report note member now speaking for the committee on human services, member from Rutland City.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Rutland City)]: Madam speaker, your committee on human services, thanks a member from appropriations. And on a straw poll of nine zero two, we found the amendment favorable. Thank you. So

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: now the question is, shall the report of the committee on human services be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? Member from Burlington.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Burlington)]: Yes. I apologize. You know, this is my only responsibility as it relates to this bill and I think I got our vote wrong. So, the vote was nine zero two. Thank you for your indulgence. The

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: question is shall the report of the committee on human services be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the report of the committee on human services. Now the question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on human services 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. May I see house leadership up at the podium please and will the house please stand at ease. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Members after conferring with house leadership, we do have two committees that need to hear amendments and thought at this point with how far we've gone it might be good to take a break. So at this time we are going to take about a half hour recess so that the committees can hear amendments and then we can come back on the floor to resume, the orders of the day. So with that the house will stand in recess until the fall