Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Members, I would like to update you on the order of bills. We are going to start with House Bill seven thirty nine. We're going to continue down on this page with House Bill eight seventeen, House Bill nine forty, House Bill 50 and then we will turn back to the front of the calendar and start at the top with House Bill five eighty five, House Bill six zero six and House Bill six forty two. Before we turn to House Bill seven thirty nine, I just want to remind members to watch the line of sight on the floor. We've had several instances of that happening today and it's important that we keep that line of sight between the speaker and the member. With that, next is House Bill seven thirty nine which is an act relating to prohibiting the use and sale of the herbicide paraquat. 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 Tunbridge, representative O'Brien will report for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: 39. An act relating to prohibiting the use and sale of the herbicide, Iroquois.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Tunbridge.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Tunbridge)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I thought I should start my report today with an observation. I doubt I am not alone here when sometimes during a report or a floor debate, I reflect that I have no idea what's going on here. The language is impenetrable and I think like sailors and lawyers, we often use language here that is very hard to understand if you're an average Vermonter watching us on YouTube. So mindful of that. Well traditionally I guess fourth graders in Vermont study Vermont government history and geography. And sure enough today as I walked up to the state house, there was a gaggle of students outside and all of a sudden a teacher said, fourth graders, listen up. And I thought, well, I should try to make this report accessible to those very fourth graders. So with that in mind, h seven thirty nine, an act relating to prohibiting the use and sale of the herbicide paraquat. It's a strike all bill, and it can be found on today's house calendar on page twelve sixty one. Okay. What is Paraquat? As the original sponsor of the bill said in committee introducing it, she said it sounds like a combination of a pear and a kumquat. She was right as far as it is a combined name. If there are any chemist here who understand molecular structures, it comes from that. It's it's actually the para positions of quaternary nitrogens, paraquat. And paraquat is very old too. I was surprised about this. Paraquat was first synthesized by chemists in 1882, but it wasn't until the fifties when its herbicidal qualities were recognized and it was first started to be manufactured in 1962. What Paracat is not, I thought would be important to mention too. Paraquat is not agent orange. It's not DDT. It's not glyphosate or its common brand name Roundup. It's its own family of herbicide and you often see this with pest pesticides or herbicides. They they sort of come by families. So Paraquat, there are various Paraquats out there, but Paraquat is its own sort of family. This bill is about banning Paraquat, but let's first talk about what Paraquat does really well, why it's still being used. It's considered a fast acting broad spectrum nonselective contact herbicide. It kills vegetation really well. So let me describe this. It's used in Vermont in a couple of ways. If any of you have been to an orchard lately in Vermont, the the old model of, you know, some forty, fifty foot high apple tree that you have to use ladders and and maybe poles to actually get the top apples on, that's that's sort of over with. The new orchard model are very smaller trees, kind of mini trees planted just a few feet apart in rows. And so for the customers, the you pick customers and even professional harvesters, it's much easier to get at the fruit. And you can also grow a lot more fruit per acre this way. So as as these young trees are put in by our new this new model in Vermont orchards, they they are vulnerable to, vegetation growing up around them. And so paraquat, if you spray it, it will kill all the grasses around these young trees. But it's kind of geniuses because it just kills broadleaf vegetation. Its geniuses it doesn't kill the trunks of those young apple trees because it's not vegetation. So the alternatives to it like Roundup, glyphosate or some other various herbicides like one causes the trees to canker. Roundup actually can harm the trunk of the tree because it gets into the into the biology of the tree. And so paraquat is favored by orchardists and this is true of we had the the orchardist founder of Champlain Orchards in who uses it and said it's very effective. It's also used very little in Vermont, but it's also used around The US quite a bit as a desiccant. This is when you have a big crop and you wanna kill the plants to get to harvest something. So say you have it's used a lot on cotton where you wanna kill the plant. It's used on peanuts because peanuts are root crops. You kill the top and then you can send your your commercial harvesters through. It's used on sunflowers, potatoes sometimes, you wanna kill the top of potatoes and also on soybeans. But very little in Vermont. It's mostly used by our orchardist here. It's considered an important tool in the so called toolbox. We talked about this a lot. Like farmers, they need every tool they can they can access in the toolbox just just to produce a crop, that can compete both in Vermont and nationally, maybe even globally. So why ban paraquat? Two reasons. Paraquat is highly toxic. It it like unbelievably toxic. If you actually ingest a teaspoon, you're dead, and there's no antidote. But it's also if you sprayed it for example and you weren't using protective equipment, just in a molecular way, molecules can get into your lungs and and in your skin and cause permanent damage. Both both lethal potentially right then and there or sub lethal that make it affect you years later. There's also a question about volatilization. This is when you spray it. Traditionally, it was it was thought to bind very well to the soil or to the vegetation that it was targeted to kill. But now this is in doubt and new studies have revealed that it may actually travel whether in the air or the water or in in, say, organic matter up to up to and potentially more than two miles. So that all of a sudden, you're not just exposing the farmer or the custom applicator who uses Paraquad, but potentially neighborhoods nearby in including schools or or housing. The other reason besides being highly toxic, the other thing you probably heard most about is their their growing definitive links between the use of paraquat and Parkinson's disease. So let me just talk a second about Parkinson's. After Alzheimer's, Parkinson's is the number two what's the word? It's neurodegenerative disease in The United States. Supposedly, our studies seem to indicate that over a million Americans have Parkinson's. My brother-in-law was just diagnosed last year with Parkinson's. The woman in committee handed me a note saying her husband had Parkinson's. It's an awful disease. It it attacks both you mentally and physically. There's there's no cure for it. It often happens when you're older. And and it tears families apart. You you because there's no cure at the moment for it, it always ends badly in death. Madam speaker, may I quote from a constituent and former farmer from Royalton?

[Rep. Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Thanks.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Tunbridge)]: This former farmer said, I have a very personal connection with this issue. I watched my father, a strong athletic man, grow feeble, decline, and finally die from Parkinson's disease. My father was exposed to pesticides for years. There's also a cost with Parkinson's. We had a the committee had a neurologist from UVM Medicine Inn who said that when you consider you often get it late in life, but when you consider, say, loss of of work years and then you pile on medical cost to treating someone with Parkinson's that the bill can come to a million dollars pretty quickly. So if you think a million Americans at a million dollars each, we're getting into some serious money here. The prediction is by 2037, Parkinson's will cost this country $80,000,000,000 a year. With Parkinson's about twenty five percent of of the disease is attributed to genetic causes, But the other seventy five percent are unknown. They're environmental. And that's where there are more and more studies, these meta studies showing that there's a link between paraquat and Parkinson's. Because of these two things, its toxicity and its link to Parkinson's, 70 countries around the world have banned the use of paraquat. Starting with Sweden in 1983 and the EU in '27 twenty o seven. And then you think, well, 70 countries, that's a lot. And these are countries that aren't known for environmental or consumer protections, like Malaysia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Syria, Cambodia, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Chad, Gambia, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, it goes on and on and on. And you're saying, why is The US still using Paraquat? Paraquat was available for almost anybody to use prior to 1978. In 1978, it become a became a restricted herbicide. But before that, like any of us could use it anywhere. So we've all been exposed probably unless you're really young. In 2021, the e EPA banned power quads use on golf courses, residential lawns, and school recreational areas. So that'd be just because of the exposure was was seen as it's not worth the risk. But it remained available to farmers as a restricted use pesticide. So you either you either had to be a farmer with a certified license to use it or you would hire a custom applicator to use it. The member from Derby, for example, if he wanted to, he doesn't. But if he wanted to, he could buy Paraquat and use it on his farm. But he couldn't use it on my farm, and he couldn't use it anywhere in a non agricultural way. So there's an irony in this too in that Paraquat is banned in among those countries, but it's banned in China, The UK, and Switzerland. All those countries still make Paraquat, and it's still available for sale in Vermont. So here's some breaking news. It's not often in committee that we get really sort of hot off the press news. But in October 2025, the EPA looking at all these volatilization studies said, wait a minute. We better we better look more into this because it appears more and more that that there's this link between Parkinson's and Paraquat. And then a fortnight ago, Syngenta, who is the the largest manufacturer of Paraquat, they're a Swiss based company that's even that's owned by an even bigger agro conglomerate called Chem China, a state owned Chinese company. But they sent out a memo saying they are no longer going to license or sell Paracat in this country. And we thought, well, that's that's odd because they're not getting pushed by the EPA, for example. But then legally, the weight of the sort of tort tort world is seems to be wearing them down, that they're something like 6,500 liability cases brought against Syngenta for manufacturing Paraquat. And para Syngenta's already settled suits to the tune of $180,000,000 with with saying not not saying they're culpable, but just just to make the suits go away. So you can see that if we're already at 200,000,000 say in in settlements, you know, 1,000,000,000 is not far behind. And then I think in corporate board rooms, they're thinking, well, maybe this this pesticide is really not worth it anymore. They also Syngenta, a couple years ago, withdrew the sale and licensing in Canada. So slowly, the makers of Paraquat seem to be in retreat. And it's quite possible that that the EPA at some point, maybe in the next three or five years, will ban Paraguat, but it seems even more likely that the makers of Paraguat are just gonna stop selling it because liability wise, it's just not worth it on a bottom line level. So now to the bill. It's a six page bill. It starts at section one with findings, which are pretty much what I've gone over, all the problems with paraquat. Section two starts with definitions, and they they begin with what I was saying about families. We we just wanted to make sure all variations of power clock were gonna be included in a band. So it goes over that. Authorized use. What's what we're doing in Vermont because we're trying to be we're trying to make Vermont both safer, but also be thoughtful of the orchardist who use it here. And we don't wanna kneecap them and make make it harder to make a living farming in Vermont. So the bill proposes a phase out to a ban. And it starts with the secretary of agriculture will issue permits to orchardists who apply for them in in only certain situations, and there's gonna be a lot of a lot more data involved in where you bought it from, how you're using it, what land you're using it on so that we can track its use in Vermont. The ban itself starts 11/01/2030. And then there's reporting so that the agency of agriculture will report to this body how paraquat is used in Vermont if it still is at that point. And then because to take this important tool out of the toolbox of farmers, section three proposes alternatives to Paraquat, a study using the agricultural innovation board. So we hope that that board in connection perhaps with UVM extension and the great universities even locally, you know, Corcoran or or Durham or Amherst, UMass Amherst, could look into ways to grow great fruit without paraquat because, for example, the EU seems to have done this wonderfully. Interestingly, the four top producers of apples in the world, China, they produce half the world's apples, Turkey, The US, and Poland. And I thought the most interesting was Poland because it's a climate almost identical to ours. They have cold winters. They have four seasons. They have temperate summers. And so it would be interesting to study how they have moved on in a post paracrot world and still grown grapefruit. I think we can do it. Section four, effective dates. The effective date for for the passage is 07/01/2026. The the actual ban would be 11/01/2026 because the this was pointed out by the our our committee orchardist from Cabot that you don't really wanna have a July 1 effective date, is right in the middle of a growing season. So I I think the legislature and the fiscal year don't often align with what farmers are doing on their farms. We heard from vice president of science policy at CropLife America, the neurologist I mentioned earlier from the Larner College of Medicine UVM, The chair of the Department of Agriculture, Landscape and Environment at the UVM Hort Farm. Director of the UVM Hort Farm. The amendment sponsor, director of plant industry division, agency of ag. The senior government relations officer of the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, the owner and operator of Cabot Smith Farm in Cabot, the deputy director of Plant Industry Division at Ag, I'm an emeritus professor of agroecology at UNH Durham, the legislative council, and the founder and orchardist of Champlain Orchards. So this committee did a lot of work on finding that balance between making Vermont safer and also thoughtfully supporting our orchardous in Vermont because it's it's actually historically and even to this day a really important crop, And we all love to go and pick apples and know that we're safe. The vote from out of our house ag committee was eight zero zero unanimous. And we would appreciate this body's support.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: 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? Member from Hartford.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Hartford)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The committee on agriculture, food resiliency, and forestry knows better than most that farmers have a lot on their plate. No one should have to accept an elevated risk of neurological disease as a condition of earning a living. Many applicators follow label instructions meticulously and still face exposure through drift, equipment failure, and long term environmental persistence. Paraquat has a half life in soil ranging from 16 to over six years and can also be transported through dust and residue on the crops that people consume. Just as farmers in 72 other nations have achieved economic success and high crop yields using alternatives to this exceptionally toxic herbicide, I hope our state can support Vermont's farmers in achieving the same. I've been so impressed by the contributions of each committee member and the way that they have come together to craft such a thoughtful bill. I hope you'll join me in voting yes on h seven thirty nine.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: 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. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Now we'll turn to House Bill eight seventeen which is an act relating to mental health support and substance use disorder prevention in schools. The bill was committed to the committee on health care which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Winooski, representative Berbeco 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 healthcare. The member from Burlington, representative Bluemle will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H eight thirteen, an act relating to mental health support and substance use disorder prevention in schools.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Burlington, Winooski.

[Rep. Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Madam speaker, h eight one seven promotes youth peer to peer support programs, and it aims to improve how adults who work in schools recognize and understand youth mental health issues. I'm gonna list some data about Vermont youth mental health issues to demonstrate why we need this bill. And I apologize in advance for the dour news, but there's really no way to sugarcoat it. Suicide is the second leading cause of death for ten to fourteen year olds in America. May I share some statistics from the latest youth risk behavioral survey for Vermont?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: You may.

[Rep. Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: One in four high school students in Vermont report doing something such as cutting or burning themselves to hurt themselves on purpose in the past year. One in fifteen Vermont students reported trying to kill themselves at some point in the past year. Thirty four percent of Vermont high school students said that their mental health was not good most of the time or always not good in the past thirty days. And only one in five of our youth reported that they haven't experienced poor mental health that month. So our kids have told us that only twenty percent of them can go thirty days without experiencing poor mental health. That includes stress, anxiety, and depression. So what have we done as state leaders to show families that we're listening in a meaningful way? Health care in Vermont is the most expensive in the country. We also have some of the highest property taxes. The majority of our mental health workforce could probably make more money working at McDonald's in part because our state budget for their services doesn't keep up with inflation. A therapist makes 62¢ to every dollar earned by a physician assistant. So recruiting and retaining enough mental health workers in our state is a tremendous problem. One real world impact of that is that when a Vermont kid is very sick and they need inpatient mental health care, they often go out of state to out of state providers which forces their families to travel, to visit them, or for those youth to recover without family by their side. So I think I've established that our youth are having some serious mental health challenges, which clearly can keep them from being able to focus on learning. And Vermont's mental health providers are not exactly empowered to meet their needs. It's not the job of a teacher to provide mental health services. But by not providing teachers the tools that they need to recognize mental health challenges early on, we're feeling both them and their students. What else do we know about how and what young people are doing? The youth risk behavioral survey data shows us that high school students who felt sad, anxious, empty, angry, or hopeless were most likely to talk about their feelings to a friend. Thirty nine percent said that they would talk to a friend if they felt that way. But less than a quarter, twenty three percent of them said that they would talk to their parent if they were having those feelings. You may recall, madam speaker, that this body recently passed legislation that empowered peer certified workers in Vermont to bill Medicaid for their services. The peer approach to mental health work is proven effective at reaching better outcomes than without it. And what do we know about youth peer to peer efforts specifically? Peer support strategies are being used to reduce bullying in schools. Circles of friends are groups of students who work as a team to support a vulnerable student. And befriending, a process where students are assigned to be with or to befriend another student. This is documented well in, research published in 2010. Peer support has been used to help pregnant teens stop smoking. A 1998 paper reviewed interventions where a nonsmoking peer acts as a role model for peers who smoke. Teen Talk is another youth health education program that offers peer support in the form of listening, referring, and educating about a peer to peer about a peer to peer program and strategies providing ongoing support and modeling from one non disabled pupil to a pupil with an individualized education program or IEP. It encompasses both the academic and social domains. So benefits are derived by both pupils. Certified teachers in this model at appropriate grade levels must be teachers assigned to an elective peer to peer course program. The teachers may be in special ed or general education programs. And once the peers complete thirty five hours of training, they develop and present skits at schools and sponsor info tables at school and community events, educating the entire community. Here in Vermont, in Mentor's Dream program, Vermont youth are paired with a slightly older peer, and the younger student is guided and supported in academics and social development. Programs like Mentor Vermont and Dream have been found to improve younger students' social skills, their willingness to follow rules, their overall sense of self worth, and also school competence, and that's documented in 2005 paper by Carter. I wanna highlight that this bill refers to grant programs, but it does not carry any funding. The bill also addresses mental health, but it doesn't involve any clinical services. The activities directed are directed at school age youth, but this bill doesn't outline the use of or require any specific curriculum. This legislation is different because it's getting us upstream on mental health and prevention. This bill embraces successful age appropriate components of existing programs in our state. Many of them are federally funded, but they're not equally distributed or coordinated. And it asks our agencies to determine the best practices in the Vermont context. How can we keep our resources relevant and accessible to our youth, to their families, and our teachers? This legislation truly intends to build upon past investments to strengthen the protective factors for our kids, our teachers, families, and our economy. What we consistently hear about youth mental health is we need to build stronger connections earlier. We need to equip school communities with practical knowledge and create safe structured ways for students to support one another without replacing professional care. And h eight one seven is designed to do exactly that. If you turn to page one two six four of the house calendar, I'm gonna do a section by section summary of the bill. Section one is about mental health literacy and peer support initiatives. The section establishes a new framework and statute that supports mental health literacy and peer to peer initiatives in schools and youth serving settings. It also clearly defines the purpose of the bill, which is to strengthen protective factors, increase mental health literacy, and expand access to develop mentally appropriate peer support that promotes early identification of mental health challenges. And that's what I mean when I say upstream. Subsection b, this section allows as funding is available remember I said this bill doesn't have any appropriation. As funding is available, schools may apply for grants through the Department of Mental Health to provide training for educators and school personnel. The training may include understanding mental health conditions and substance use challenges, recognizing warning signs and risk factors, reducing stigma, and promoting supportive environments, responding to students with empathy, connecting students to resources and services. Importantly, this bill does not mandate a specific curriculum. It allows for schools to propose approaches that meet their local needs. Subsection c, peer to peer mental health support. This subsection allows schools, after school programs, and youth mentoring organizations to establish structured, supervised peer to peer support programs. And the key guardrails that are built in include programs that have to provide a structured way to for youth to connect with peers. They have to be supervised by an adult. Programs have to emphasize connection to professional services when needed. And these programs are explicitly nonclinical, so they can't replace professional mental health care. And that's to protect both the quality of our clinical care standards we are used to here in Vermont. It also is to keep these programs cost effective. Plus, we know that youth talk to their peers about their feelings first, not their counselors or parents. This section also spells out that the Department of Mental Health is tasked with providing oversight and guidance, including setting parameters for the program structure and who that adult supervision what the adult supervision would look like. Subsection d requires that the Department of Mental Health develop age appropriate guidance because younger students need to focus on social emotional development and connection with each other, and middle and high school students should focus on stigma reduction, recognizing warning signs, and appropriate ways to respond to each other. That ensures that programming is effective for the developmental needs of students at their various ages. Subsection c is about reporting. We are asking the Department of Mental Health to submit an annual report to us here in the legislature that includes participation numbers, the program reach, and then broad findings and recommendations. This ensures that legislative oversight and it allows us to really evaluate effectiveness over time as well as monitor demand for these services. Section two is the effective date. This bill would take effect 07/01/2026. Madam speaker, we cannot build a mental health system that only responds in crisis. By the time a student reaches a crisis point, we have already missed multiple opportunities to intervene earlier. So eight seventeen is about prevention, early identification, and connection. This bill equips educators and school staff with practical tools. It aims to reduce stigma around mental health and substance use. It embraces the reality that students often turn to peers first, and it creates safe and structured environments for them to do that. Importantly, it reinforces, not replaces, the role of our licensed professionals. It also strengthens protective factors so that fewer young people reach crisis in the first place. I wanna remind you that one in one in fifteen of our high schoolers in Vermont told us that they tried to kill themselves at some point this past year. So I invite you to contemplate what you have done in this role, in this body to support the youth in your community. Our kids are tomorrow, and tomorrow is our responsibility. So we need to tell our kids that we hear you, and we are here for you. And this bill clearly tells our state agencies that our intent is for them to look at the existing investments that we are making and to lift up the best practices from those to offer guidance to local schools and communities. This bill is demonstrating that we want schools to design and apply for grants that are rightsized for local communities. The House Committee on Health Care heard testimony from the school mental health and practice development coordinator at the Department of Mental Health, the executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness of Vermont, the Vermont chapter of the American Federation of Suicide Prevention, the board chair, trainer, and mental health professional at Northeast Kingdom Human Services. We heard from the Vermont Family Alliance, ledge count legislative council in the office of legislative council, the executive director of Vermont After School, the adolescent and family unit director at the Department of Mental Health, the public relations chair at the Vermont School Counselor Association, the executive director of Vermont Care Partners, the legislative page from Morrisville, two students from Winooski High School, the Vermont 2025 teacher of the year. And the house committee on health care voted ten zero one to recommend that the body vote yes to pass h one eight one seven.

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

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, h 17 as amended by House Health Care carries no appropriation and as such has no fiscal impact on the state of Vermont. Our committee recommends the bill ought to pass by a vote of eleven zero.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on health care? Are you ready for the question? Member from Ferrisburg.

[Unidentified member from Milton]: Thank you, madam speaker. The reporter of the bill and I began a discussion prior to the presentation here, and we didn't get to finish that discussion, but we thought it might be beneficial for for you and the rest of the body to be participants in that disco at least hear the discussion. So we we we thought I if I could, madam speaker, interrogate the presenter of the bill for a friendly line of questioning.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: The member from Minutesky is interrogated.

[Rep. Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: So generally, I absolutely support this bill, and and I am in general support of of bringing care down, especially mental health care down down to the lowest possible level. In other words, applying it at the lowest level as early as possible. Great. So these are some great ideas. But I also recognize the incredible importance that that parents and guardians play and their involvement in their in their children's health and well-being. So I'm just wondering if the committee considered and and how it might be worked in to provide notification to parents that this type of peer to peer suggested peer to peer mechanism was was being applied with their child at school.

[Rep. Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Madam speaker, it might be helpful if I walk us through an example of what this program would look like in action or if we implemented it. So to the extent that funds were available, such as through a congressional earmark process, a SAMHSA Aware grant, block grant, or philanthropic donation, the Department of Mental Health could design grants that schools may apply

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: for.

[Rep. Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: And that would be done through a state RFA process, a request for application, which is a fully public process. It's transparent to teachers, staff, parents, and students. So it's really upon our administration to propose the parameters of the pro of the project, both the peer to peer piece and the mental health literacy piece. And then it's really upon the school to define what they propose to do within those parameters that are set by the agency of human services to meet the intent of this legislation that I've described in my report.

[Rep. Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Okay. That sounds great that the schools then or or the the department of mental health would would would construct the the program for each individual school. I think that was my is that my understanding of the answer?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: The member from Winooski continues to be interrogated.

[Rep. Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: The Department of Mental Health would define a grant program, which would be articulated in a request for applications that a local school could then apply for. And in their application, they would design what their local program would look like k. Including how parents were involved.

[Rep. Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: If I might continue the line of questioning. So would we be willing in in our bill here to to provide some criteria that would encourage the school's developed program to require parental notification when the peer to peer program is being implemented with their student?

[Rep. Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Madam speaker, as a parent, I really appreciate the sentiment of these questions. And in fact, we did while working on this an earlier version of this bill, which I presented to the agency of education and the agency of human services, it was requested that we remove the sections that included parental notification and curriculum because the state does not mandate curriculum or require specific curricula to be implemented in schools, and that's where parental notification would lie in that statute.

[Rep. Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Oh, okay. The and I'm I'm also wondering if if in the peer to again, I know that we're not specifying particular curriculum, but we're outlining some criteria that we want a school's developed program to meet, and I think that's what subsection b one a through h are kind of providing. Would we expect in those in those programs there to be a way, and and maybe this is already specified in there, and I'm just not reading it properly. Is there a way to to encourage that if if within these adult supervised peer to peer count sessions, not counseling sessions, if if some suspected domestic abuse might be occurring, is there is there a way for the DCF to get involved or or a a guidance counselor to get involved to to kinda guide the the session in that direction?

[Rep. Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Madam speaker, the school staff and employees are all mandated reporters of things like that. And further, I just wanna clarify that a through h are related to the mental health literacy training, and what they are is lifting up recommended components as suggested by the Department of Mental Health. So those are not in the peer to peer section. Those a through h are actually for the mental health literacy training, would be received by school staff and teachers.

[Rep. Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Yes. I'm sorry. Yep. It was the a through c below. Was yep. You're right. Okay. Thank thank you. Remember, I I appreciate the, the interest of the questions. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on health care? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear have it, the ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Next is House Bill nine forty which is an act relating to miscellaneous public utility subjects. The bill was introduced by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure. The member from Manchester, representative James, will speak for the committee. And Karen and appropriation, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the bill ought to pass. The member from Burke, representative Kaczynski, will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H nine forty, an act relating to miscellaneous public utility subjects.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Manchester.

[Multiple members (diarization overlap; see time-bound entries)]: Madam speaker, h nine forty is an act relating to miscellaneous public utility subjects, and the bill lives up to its title. It has three distinct policy pieces that are completely unrelated to each other. Section one is session law. It relates to how one of our state's three efficiency utilities, Burlington Electric, may spend some of its allocated funding for its upcoming twenty twenty seven to twenty twenty nine budget cycle. Sections two through four update and align the steps and timelines that our regional planning commissions and municipalities follow when they're seeking approval for their optional enhanced energy plans.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Manchester)]: And then Section five disbands the Telecommunications and Advisory Board, which was established in 2015, but has only met twice since 2021. I will now walk you through H-nine 40 and members can find the language on our committee page in the H-nine 40 bill folder dated Friday, March 13. So section one, high level. Vermont has three efficiency utilities, Efficiency Vermont, Vermont Gas, and Burlington Electric. Our EUs receive funding from several revenue sources. One familiar source is the efficiency charge that ratepayers see on their bills based on how much power or gas we each use. The EUs invests this money specifically on programs that help Vermonters save money by using less electricity or natural gas. Another separate source is the money that flows from Vermont's participation in the multistate regional greenhouse gas initiative or RGGI. RGGI revenues are allocated to EUs on a proportional basis, and the EUs in turn invest the money into programs that help Vermonters use, use less unregulated fuel. So typically, that's the heating oil and propane that many Vermonters use to heat their homes. This is called Thermal Energy and Process Fuel Funding, TEPF, to introduce one more acronym. Vermont statute 30 VSA 29 E one lays out how this TEPF money can be spent. It's very specific and the law says among other things that TEPF funds can only be used to serve unregulated fuel customers, meaning customers who use propane, oil, kerosene, or wood for heating. This has posed a unique challenge for Burlington Electric whose territory has 97% overlap with another EU, Vermont Gas. Burlington has near universal natural gas service. Therefore, BED has very few unregulated gas customers to serve with its TEPF money. That's why since 2020, Vermont's legislature, through the Energy Efficiency Modernization Act, has specifically authorized Burlington Electric to use its allotted TEPF funds more broadly so that it could offer all of its customers programs that reduce fossil fuel use across the thermal and transportation sectors. BED has successfully used this money for a wide array of incentives, including offering its customers financial incentives for EVs, EV chargers and heat pumps, working with Green Mountain Transit on electric bus incentives, and working with the Burlington School District to help test and develop a geothermal heating and cooling system for the new high school. The second three year EMA pilot ends this year in 2026, and that is why we are here today. Burlington Electric estimates that it will receive about $2,650,000 in TEPF money during its upcoming three year budget cycle. BED needs to check two boxes regarding this money. One, they need legislative approval to continue this flexible spending. And two, they're well underway in getting this three year plan reviewed and approved, the usual process by the Public Utility Commission with input from the Department of Public Service. Of this estimated 2,650,000.00, BED estimates that about 687,000 will go to DPS for measurement and verification of its efficiency program. This is a robust verification program and it's how we ensure that efficiency dollars are being spent on programs that serve the market, serve customers, and deliver results. BED hopes to spend another 200,000 on programs that target its few oil and propane customers. Just as a reminder, that's the traditional use of this funding. They can help these folks with weatherization, for example. So that leaves 1,700,000.0 in TEPF funding that Burlington Electric can't use unless the legislature grants them continued flexibility in this bill. As you'll see, we've put some parameters around it. So now we're gonna walk through section one. In subsection a, you see language that explicitly defines Burlington Electric, the 2027 to 2029 timeline, and the ability to use its upcoming TEPF funds and any small amount of carry forward money that might be left over from the current cycle on these more flexible programs that can reach all of their customers, as we've discussed. In subsection b, you'll see language that will require BED to prioritize weatherization with this 1,700,000. This criteria resulted from conversations that BED and the Department of Public Service had during our committee work. We asked them to work together on consensus language and that's what you see here. 60% of the money, dollars 1,000,000 must be used for weatherization and 60% of that money, 600,000, has to target low and moderate income Vermonters with the kind of nitty gritty pre weatherization work that older homes often need before they can weatherize, like replacing old knob and tube wiring or replacing electrical panels. BED would use any remaining funds to continue its other programs like geothermal testing and providing EV charging units for renters and multifamily homes. In subsection C, you'll see that BED will seek approval in the demand resource plan budget approval process. Again, this is already underway. That, and that it will report to the PUC annually on how this work is going. And finally, in subsection d, we simply clarify that BED's activity with this money doesn't count toward its separate and distinct obligation as a distribution utility under Vermont's renewable energy standard. So that was the most complicated part of the bill. The next three sections, two, three and four, in some ways are really kind of a long technical correction. So though it takes a few pages, it's really a very narrow update to the statutes that govern how towns and regions adopt their plans. So I'm always kind of big on background. So just briefly, every eight years, our regional planning commissions must update their regional plans. These are long term documents that guide action across broad areas like housing, economic development, transportation and conservation. The plans are approved by the Land Use Review Board through a process that includes a draft, feedback, and public hearings. Towns may also adopt a local municipal plan. That's a similar process, but these are reviewed and approved by the region's planning commission. Regions and towns may also adopt an optional enhanced energy plan. Though it's voluntary, these plans are really important because once they're improved, they, approved, they give the region or municipalities substantial deference when the Public Utility Commission is considering considering citing an energy facility like a solar array. So this is a legal standard and it means the PUC has to give the, plan stronger weight when considering an application. So, last biennium, the legislature required all 11 of our RPCs to adopt these regional plans on the same timeline. So this gives us a chance, and an opportunity really to update all of these laws to streamline the process, make it more efficient, and align the timelines. So these revisions to Title 24 reflect the consensus request of the Land Use Review Board, the Department of Public Service, and our RPCs. So in short, quickly, in section two, subsection b, you can see that RPCs that are developing an enhanced energy plan will submit the draft plan to the Department of Public Service at the same time they're submitting their draft regional plan to the Land Use Review Board. Various changes without this section will number one, streamline public feedback by consolidating it with the adoption of broader regional or town plans rather than having two separate process processee. This should make it easier or more effective for Vermonters to weigh in. And two, it adjusts the timeline so that towns and municipalities don't experience a gap in having an approved energy plan. So that maintains their very important ability to have substantial deference. Section three makes technical corrections to 24 VSA 3,450. That's the statute on how the RPCs review municipal plans with that same alignment goal. Section four amends 24 VSA forty three fifty two, the statute that sets the enhanced energy planning requirements. It updates the reference to Vermont's greenhouse gas reduction requirements, and it gets rid of an outdated renewable energy goal, replacing it with a reference to the renewable energy standard. So basically, syncing up steps, timelines, updating language. And finally, section five. This brief section disbands the telecommunications and connectivity advisory board. The TCAB was established in 2015 to advise the commissioner of the Department of Public Service on the development of our state telecommunications policy and planning with a very specific focus on expanding wired internet service to all addresses across Vermont. So, folks, I think are certainly well aware that in 2021, ACT seventy one created the Vermont Community Broadband Board, and that organization has since been leading the state's goal to provide universal access to reliable, high quality, affordable fixed broadband. So this has basically made the TCAB obsolete and the TCAB has, met only twice since 2021. They are asking to be disbanded and the Department of Public Service supports this request. Madam Speaker, we heard from a wide range of witnesses on all section of, sections of this bill, including the director of efficiency and energy resources division at the Public Service Department, the executive director of the Northwest Regional Planning Commission, the legislative liaison for the Public Utility Commission, the executive director of the Land Use Review Board, the Chair of the Land Use Review Board, the Data and Equity Policy Manager at the Department of Public Service, the Director of Regulated Utility Planning at the Department of Public Service, general counsel for the Land Use Review Board, our own legislative counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel, the general manager of Burlington Electric, the managing director of Efficiency Vermont, and we had written testimony from Vermont Gas. The Vermont Energy the Vermont the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee passed, h nine forty on a vote of eight one zero, and we ask for your support.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Burke.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Burke)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Members of the appropriations committee received testimony from the chair of the energy and digital infrastructure committee regarding h nine forty that proposes to allow the utilization of thermal energy and process fuel funds to advance work on additional projects related to transportation, weatherization, and thermal energy. Other initiatives presented to the committee include to require the adoption of a new telecommunications plan every five years instead of three years, which in the long run will save the state some appropriations there, to disband the telecommunications and connectivity advisory board and require the submission of draft regional plans from regional planning commissions to the Land Use Review Board as reported. Members of the Appropriations Committee received testimony from the Joint Fiscal Office that no appropriation is required to proceed with the purpose of h nine forty as detailed. And with a vote of ten zero one, your Appropriation Committee recommends the bill ought to pass. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: So 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 50 which is an act relating to identifying underutilized state buildings and land. The bill was referred to a committee of conference on the disagreeing part of the disagreeing votes of the two chambers. The committee of conference has met and considered the same and recommends that the house adopt its report which is printed in today's calendar. Member from Fairfield.

[Unidentified member from Fairfield]: Thank you, madam speaker. The committee of conference met, had an agreement. The senate has thus agreed as well. The only change that we made from the the bill has passed in this house was that we readded the words or state leased in front of buildings in section C, and the senate's reason for that is because they just wanna have an inventory of what we do lease to see if vacant state owned properties that we could use them instead of leased property. So they just wanted that included. It was it's a very small change, and we concur with their well, we ask the body for the support.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: The question is, shall the house adopt the report of the committee of conference on its part? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and the report of the committee of conference is adopted. Up next is house bill five eighty five which is an act relating to health insurance reforms. Prior to third reading, the member from Castleton, representative Harvey offers an amendment to the bill that the first assistant clerk emailed to members at 01:51PM today. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Castleton.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. And before I just give some brief remarks and focus on brevity as I know that we've this is a marathon, I do want to say my thanks to your chair of health care and to the vice chair and to the members of the committee for their hard work and for their time this afternoon hearing the amendment, which again will look very familiar as it is the exact amendment that my colleague, the representative from Ferrisburg, offered yesterday. Excuse me. Yesterday, as I laid out in some detail my concerns about section 10 of this bill, the constitutional vulnerabilities, the undefined terms, and the ongoing Tenth Circuit litigation out of Colorado that could give

[Unidentified member from Milton]: us

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: guidance the guidance we need before we act. I won't repeat all that now and religate the points, but those concerns, madam speaker, still stand. The amendment before us is straightforward. It's a simple strike of section 10 in its entirety, and that I would posit to the body is the right outcome. It preserves everything else in this bill, the clinical decision making provisions, the executive compensation transparency, among any many other great pieces of legislation, while removing the one section that is not ready and that exposes Vermont to expensive, avoidable litigation. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and when the vote is taken, I ask it to be taken by role.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: The member from Castleton request that when the vote is taken, it be taken by roll. Is the member sustained? Is member sustained? The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. Member from Essex.

[Rep. Lori Houghton (Essex Junction)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And we thank the member from Castleton for coming into our committee today, and it allowed us to, again, have robust discussion around this. We your committee on health care took extensive testimony on this section of the bill. I want to make very clear what this that this section does not ban health sharing plans. It does not mean people can't choose these plans. This is simply consumer protection. We are asking that health sharing plans simply report to the Department of Financial Regulation, their members, and other financial information around shares collected and shares paid out. The intent of this legislation is so that we can have a more accurate picture of the health care landscape in the state of Vermont. Patients, Vermonters are in an affordability crisis, and they are searching for options to for health care coverage. We want to make certain that they are aware of all of their options, and we want to provide choice. And by the Department of Financial Regulation receiving information, Vermonters will be able to make more informed decisions. That is what this section is. So we urge oh, I'm sorry. On a vote of eight three zero, we found this amendment unfavorable, and we ask that the body please support your committee on health care and vote no on this amendment.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: The question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Castleton, member from Montpelier.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Madam speaker, may I inquire of the presenter of the amendment?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: The member from Castleton is interrogated.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Just so I understand, if the amendment were to pass, madam speaker, would there be any state reporting requirements or transparency requirements for health care sharing plans?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: I'm sorry. Member, can you repeat that?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Sure. If the amendment passed, would there be any state reporting or transparency requirements for these health care sharing plans? It's it's my understanding, madam speaker, that in conversation with the chair

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: of health care and the rest of the committee, that DFR already has robust policies in place and that they are actively looking at this, which is actually what inspired the the legislation as it currently stands. I don't think it in terms of the reporting requirements, these health care sharing plans are something that are certainly a very nascent product and and service that's evolving in the state and really, at the end of the day, has been done because health care is unaffordable and unpredictable and Vermonters are starving for some kind of assistance, and they're looking at viable alternatives to the health care plans that they simply can't afford.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: I'm sorry, madam speaker. Just want to I don't think I heard an answer. Would there be any state reporting or transparency requirements if this amendment passes?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Not specific to these health care sharing plans. No.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Thank you. Is there anything in section 10 that the member believes prohibits these plans from operating? Or again, does it only require transparency? I

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: thank the member for the question. What I come back to is what I believe is an unfair targeting of the the mechanism behind these plans. And there's a what I believe, and I know other members of the body and certainly our constituents believe are severe constitutionality concerns that are playing out in Colorado as we speak. And I think it would be extremely prudent, which I mentioned to the committee and to the chair, that maybe a study group is a reasonable alternative to look at what these plans would actually do, how they would be how they're being implemented and utilized in Vermont by the very Vermonters that need the ability to have plans that they can afford. Because at the end of the day, madam speaker, if the system was working the way that we intended, these health care shared plans would not be necessary.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: But again, just a follow-up, madam speaker, would anything prohibit these plans from operating?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Again, madam speaker, it is not about prohibiting them from operating. It's about the undue and unfair targeting of the individuals that are utilizing these plans for their health care needs.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Madam Speaker, does the member have a sense of how many health care sharing plans are currently operating in Vermont or how many Vermonters are enrolled in them?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: I do not, madam Speaker. Luckily, I'm on house judiciary.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: I I thank the member. Madam speaker, I don't know how many of these plans are operating either. I don't know how many Vermonters they impact, and that's the entire problem. These health care ministries use terms like plans, members, benefits. They have monthly payments that look a lot like premiums. One markets itself as an affordable alternative to traditional health insurance. But there's one difference. They have no legal obligation to pay. What we've heard is that section 10 doesn't prohibit these ministries or redefine them as insurance. It simply ensures a basic level of transparency. And I think that's a reasonable expectation when Vermonters are entrusting any entity with their health care costs. I'd urge the body to vote no on this amendment.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Castleton, member from Essex?

[Rep. Lori Houghton (Essex Junction)]: I just like like to make clear because I believe the presenter of the amendment indicated that the chair of house health care advised that we knew, and maybe he can correct me if I'm wrong, but that he that we knew and I knew of how many plans there were and who they were. The point of this legislation is that we don't have that information. No one has that information. Department of Financial Regulation doesn't have that information. They would like this information, which is why this section is in the bill. This bill does not regulate health care sharing plans. It doesn't ban them. It places no restrictions on them whatsoever. It does not target religious organizations. Anyone can have a share plan. Any group with commonalities can create share plans. We are trying to I I believe the member from Castleton indicated that what we need is a study group. Section 10 is essentially that study group. We would like you to send information to the Department of Financial Regulation. If you have members in the state of Vermont, how many members do you have? How much have you collected in shares from them? How much have you paid out in medical claims? This is not equivalent to a contract between an individual and a company. That is fine. They can make those arrangements. But what these share plans do, it's important to understand that they then bind our health care providers into what is a private contract between a member and a share plan. And we speak an awful lot about provider burden and administrative burden in our committee. This supports and helps support our healthcare providers because as it stands currently, many of these health sharing plans place a burden on the provider for administrative requests, for claims submissions, for third party health national health networks. That is why we are asking for information. The member would like a study group. This is that study group. Again, we ask that the body please vote no on this amendment. Let's support our administration and the Department of Financial Regulation.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Castleton? Member from Castleton.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you madam speaker. I actually have a parliamentary inquiry of the body. It's my understanding pursuant to house rules that members are not allowed to photograph other members while they are speaking on the floor. Is that understanding correct?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Cassiton, your point of inquiry. Pictures are not permissible on the floor during proceedings unless the presiding officer has approved such

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: request. So I'd ask you, madam speaker, have you authorized pictures of members to be taken on the floor?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: Can I see the members at the podium please? The House of Standing East. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? Member from Casselton, the floor is still yours if you have other comments to make.

[Unidentified member from Milton]: No other points to that.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you. No other points, madam speaker. I just, the thing that we are constantly striving for in this body, and I feel like it is impressed upon us and off and other times have lectured to us to maintain decorum and civility and to make sure that this August body debates with the seriousness and and really the integrity that the people of Vermont demand, and I feel like that was lacking in the actions that I just saw. And whether it was the member that you and I spoke about or another member that admitted to doing it on the dais, you understand my concerns with it. And I I thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Castleton? Are you ready for question? Member from Milton.

[Unidentified member from Milton]: Thank you, madam speaker. I would like to interrogate the presenter of the bill.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: We are on the amendment.

[Unidentified member from Milton]: No. Okay.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: The member is interrogated if she's is the let's reset here. Member from Milton, is your we're on the question of the member from Castleton's amendment. Is it about that? The member from Winooski is interrogated? Oh, I'm sorry. Winooski. Can member, can I see you at the podium for a moment? Will the house please come to order? Members, it is a been a long day. I appreciate your patience with this. Member from Milton. The member from Essex is interrogated.

[Unidentified member from Milton]: Madam Speaker, was any testimony taken from users of health sharing programs or administrators of these health sharing programs?

[Rep. Lori Houghton (Essex Junction)]: Yes.

[Unidentified member from Milton]: Thank you, madam speaker, and I thank the member.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Castleton, member from Essex Junction? Madam speaker, the language in h five eighty five brings transparency and accountability to health care sharing plans that operate outside traditional insurance oversight. By having this information, consumers can make informed decisions about their health care. A no vote is about basic oversight and protecting Vermonters, not taking away anyone's options. I ask the body to vote no on this amendment. Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

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

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: No. Two minutes. Will the house please come to order? Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? I would like to remind members that we are in the middle of a roll call vote. Members and guests are prohibited from using computers, phones or any type of an electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes in conversation during the roll call. When the clerk calls your name, please answer in a loud and clear voice so the clerk can accurately record your votes. The question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Castleton? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Reading Clerk (Roll Call)]: Austin of Colchester. No. Bailey of Hyde Park. No. Bartholomew of Heartland. No. Bartley of Fairfax. No. Rebecca Venueski. No. Birong of Vergens. No. Bishop of Colchester. No. Black of Essex. No. Bloomley of Burlington. No. Bosch at Clarendon. Boonton of Cambridge. Brady of Williston. No. Branagan in Georgia. Yes. Branagan of St. Alvinstown. Brown in Richmond. Burditt, a West Rutland. No. Burkhardt of South Burlington. No. Burrows of West Windsor. No. Burditt Cabot. Campbell, St. Johnsbury. Yeah. I'm sorry. Campbell St. Johnsbury. Yeah. Thank you. Canfield of Fair Haven. Yes. Carris Duncan Whitingham. No. Casey Montpelier. No. Casey Hubbardton. Chapin East Montpelier. No. Charleston Chester. Yes. Christie of Hartford. Gina of Burlington. No. Coffin and Cavendish. Cole of Hartford? No. Conlon and Cornwall? No. Cooper And Pownall? No. Corcoran by Nington? No. Critchlow of Colchester? No. Demar of Venusburg? Donahue of Northfield? No. Duke of Burlington?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: No.

[House Reading Clerk (Roll Call)]: Durfee of Shaftsbury? No. Eastes of Guildford? No. Hemons of Springfield? Galfetti, a Barrytown. No. Gary Fano of Essex. No. Coleman of Rockingham. No. Goodnight or Butterborough. No. Ghostland on Northfield. Gerica. No. Gregory Bennington. No. Greg Burditt. No. Greg Higley of Lowell? Yes. Holcomer Norwich? No. Cooper of Randolph? No. Houghton of Essex Junction?

[Multiple members (diarization overlap; see time-bound entries)]: No.

[House Reading Clerk (Roll Call)]: Howard of Rutland City? No. Holland of Rutland Town? Hartford? No. Hunter Manchester?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Tunbridge)]: No.

[House Reading Clerk (Roll Call)]: James in Manchester? No. Kasinski at Burke? Keyser at Rettland City? No. Kimball Woodstock? No. Kreptner of Burlington.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Tunbridge)]: No.

[House Reading Clerk (Roll Call)]: Corcoranizer of Brattleboro. No. Crestmont South Burlington. No. Labour and Morgan. Yes. I'm sorry, Labour and Morgan?

[Unidentified member from Milton]: Yes.

[House Reading Clerk (Roll Call)]: Thank you. Lallie or Shelburn? No. Lone to South Burlington? No. Lomon to Morristown? No. Loresia Franklin? Lipsky of Stowe? No. Logan of Burlington?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: No.

[House Reading Clerk (Roll Call)]: Long and Uffin?

[Multiple members (diarization overlap; see time-bound entries)]: No.

[House Reading Clerk (Roll Call)]: Leaders of Lincoln? No. Uno of Saint Albany City? Mollie of Pittsburgh? Mark of Coventry. No. Madison of Bedford. No. McKenna Montpelier. No. McCoy of Pulteony. No. McFauna Berry Town. Miguel Burport. Nicholas and Milton. Mollie of Dallas. No. Many of South Burlington. No. Morgan Ela Milton. Morgan Emma Milton. Morris of Springfield. Morris of Bennington. Morris Westin. Roy K. Putney. Nelson, a derby.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Tunbridge)]: Yes. Nelson,

[House Reading Clerk (Roll Call)]: a Brandon. My girl, Bennington. No. North Of Fairisburg. Mollie S. No. New Jersey, South Burlington. O'Brien of Tunbridge. No. O'Dee Burlington. Oliver Sheldon. Olson of Starksboro. Page in Newport City. Parsons of Newbury. Pezzo of Colchester. Yes. Pinson all the Dorset. Yes. Poucher Hinesburg. No. Powers of Waterford. Yes. Priestley Bradford. No. Bridget Burditt.

[Unidentified member from Milton]: Yes.

[House Reading Clerk (Roll Call)]: Quimby of Linden? Rachel's in Burlington? Yeah. Secoats of Randolph? Shyam Middlebury? No. Sheldon of Middlebury? No. Sebeli of Dover? No. Southworth Walden? Squirrel Of Underhill. No. Milton. Stevens of Waterbury.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Tunbridge)]: No.

[House Reading Clerk (Roll Call)]: Stone of Burlington. No. Sweeney of Shelburn. No. Tagaluvia Crint? Yes. Taylor Milton? No. Taylor Mendon? Yes. Thomas Tomlinson? Torrey Mortown? Yes. Walker Swanton? Wads of Zacchaeberry City?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Tunbridge)]: No.

[House Reading Clerk (Roll Call)]: Waters Evans or Charlotte? No. Wells Of Brownington?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Tunbridge)]: No.

[House Reading Clerk (Roll Call)]: What do Weitzfield? No. What do Bethel? No. Winter at Ludlow? Woodwaterberry? No. Jacoboni or Morristown? No. Bartley of Fairfax? No. Branagan of St. Albinstown? Casey Hubbardton, Christie Parkford, Dodge of Essex, Bruno of St. Albans City, Malaya Pittsford, McGillibrand Port, Morganella Milton, Morris of Springfield, Mora Westin, Nielsen of Brandon, Oliver of Sheldon, Olson of Sarksboro, Page in Newport City, Parsons of Newbury, Quimby of Linden, Secowicz of Randolph, Steady in Milton.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: For purpose of explanation, member from Barrie City.

[Rep. Edward 'Teddy' Waszazak (Barre City)]: Madam speaker, as a religious person, I do have some concern with collecting this information. However, there are nonreligious entities. Therefore, having the information is a reasonable request. I do think that there should be an exemption for religious organizations and or urge a future body to make one.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: Member from Barrytown.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Tunbridge)]: Madam speaker, can I explain my vote?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: You may.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Tunbridge)]: I wanna be on record as a person who voted no on this amendment. And the reason is I wanna make sure that myself, my family, and all Vermonters can get the information they need to help pay for their health care. This bill or this amendment would take that information away. Thank you.

[Multiple members (diarization overlap; see time-bound entries)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: Members, please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 26. Those voting no, 104. The nays have it, and you have declined to amend the bill. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Page five eighty five. An act relating to health insurance reforms.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Member from Essex.

[Rep. Lori Houghton (Essex Junction)]: Madam speaker, as Vermonters continue to struggle with the high cost of health care, this bill, as the member from Barrytown told us yesterday, it strikes a very careful balance in the many measures that's in this bill. It provides increases transparency, needed tools for our regulator, and it supports health care providers. I urge the body to vote yes on h five eighty five. Thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: 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. Now we'll turn to house bill six zero six which is an act relating to firearms procedures. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H six zero six, an act relating to firearms procedures.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: The question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Next is house bill six forty two which is an act relating to youthful offender proceedings. Member from Brattleboro.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Madam speaker, I move that we delay action on h six forty two for one legislative day.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: The member from Brett will move that we postpone action on house bill six forty two 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. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have postponed action on House Bill six forty two for one legislative day. Members, that completes the orders of the day. Are there any announcements? Member from Jericho.

[Rep. Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Thank you, madam speaker. It's been a long day so I will be brief. I just would like to wish the member from Williston a happy birthday.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: Happy birthday, member. Members earlier today the committee on ways and means reported favorable with amendment on house bill nine forty four which is an act relating to the fiscal year 2027 transportation program and miscellaneous changes to laws related to transportation. 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. Are there any further announcements? Member from Came Weitzfield.

[Multiple members (diarization overlap; see time-bound entries)]: Madam speaker, the education reform meeting that was scheduled for today will be rescheduled for next Thursday. Thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, member from Pulte, can you please offer us a motion to adjourn until Friday, March 20 at 09:30AM?

[Multiple members (diarization overlap; see time-bound entries)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion this body stand and adjournment until Friday, 03/20/2026 at 09:30AM.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the Vermont House]: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The eyes appear to have it, the eyes do have it and this body stands in adjournment and