Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Good morning. The devotional today will be led by former member Chip Troiano of Standard.

[Former Representative Chip Troiano]: Thank you, madam speaker. Good morning, everyone. Today, I stand before you to commemorate Vietnam Veterans Day, designated by our governor and now nationwide as March 29 of every year. I come here as I have in the past years. I've spoken, quite a few years, I guess, in a forced beach where I had a lot more time. So, I was working on five minutes, but then I was told three minutes, but probably neither will work. So I just wanna get to it. So it's really great to be back in this building, you know, just the the wonderful the wonderful house and chamber that we have here today, the Corinthian columns and the light fixtures and everything that really works so well and so appropriate for a body that has been embodied here for so many years. So I stand before you today as a conscripted soldier. And so many of you, I'm sure, don't remember that back in the late nineteen sixties and early nineteen seventies, there was a draft. Every able-bodied man had to sign up for the draft. And actually, as dumb as we were, we really couldn't wait to sign up because it was your ID and you could get into a bar in New York at 18 with your draft card. So, it was a little bit, weird. But, what I found is that I dropped out of college right away after one semester, which made me eligible for the draft. And, in June 1966, I had to report to Whitehall Street for induction into the US army. One little tidbit of information I thought would might be amusing is that, you know, thousands of men at that time were getting these letters. And it was hard to you you kinda could tell where they came from by the return address. But the interesting thing is that when you open the letter up, the salutation of that letter said, greetings from your president. I thought, oh, wow. President's writing to me, you know. And then he's telling me, report to Whitehall Street for induction on June 28. So it was it was interesting. And the other piece of it is I lived on Staten Island, which is a ferry right across to Manhattan where the induction center was, and included in that letter was a literal literal wooden nickel. It was a wooden token to pay 5¢ to get across the Staten Island ferry from Staten Island to Manhattan. So, you know, I got a nickel out of the deal, but, you know, they took it for from me. And so a lit a wooden nickel was sent to me by the president. So I don't know how many others can say that. But so it's very important for me to be here to relate oral history. Oral history is very important to me. It's how the Native Americans passed their history on to each other in generation after generation. So it's really an important thing. And during my tenure here, I remember very distinctly, and I have some photographs of the last Tuskegee airman who's who came to the chamber was in town and came to the chamber and was here. And I had a chance to have some words from him because I knew all about the Tuskegee airmen and the valor and the courage that they this squadron of black pilots had during World War two. And I had some a little time to speak with him, and and we had some nice words, and now they're all gone. So before I'm gone, oral history is important. So the other piece that's happening with me right now, there's a lot of triggers. When you're treated for post traumatic stress for forty years, there seem to be a lot of triggers happening right now. And we're seeing flag draped coffins coming off the planes once again. It really strikes me very it's very difficult for me to deal with. And when we welcome home the 13 soldiers that paid the ultimate price, I really think a lot about it. But what I think about more is that in June 1968, two hundred, think about it, two hundred soldiers were killed in action in one week in June 1968. Two hundred. Think about the mothers and the fathers and the sisters and the brothers and the parents and I mean, and and the wives and the children who never saw those soldiers again. It's very difficult for me. But I wanted to just I sometimes I just pick up these little writings that I that I, come and, I just relate, and I I need to I do need to get going. So I have three short, things, and then a a brief story to that is pretty consistent with the last piece that I read. Some battles don't leave visible marks, and some stories are never told out loud. We train soldiers to survive the un unimaginable. We never prepared the world to understand the costs. Post traumatic stress does not come from being weak. It comes from staying alert every second, from sleeping with one eye open, and learning that silence is more dangerous than noise. The real controversy is not post traumatic stress itself. It's how quickly society praises the strength of war, but loses patience with the damage that that strength leaves behind. Vietnam vets face relentless hardships with unwavering loyalty and sacrifice, their own comfort to their own comfort and safety, while showing extraordinary bravery and courage. Nelson Mandela once said, courage and bravery is overcoming fear. I've I've been there. I've experienced that. The first firefight you get into, you're scared, but you conduct your business and you do it right. So the only one I don't like to tell war stories, but just inconsistent with this last piece that I read about bravery and courage, I do wanna just relate one story. We were I was, I flew, in a helicopter gunship, on the the end of my tour toward the end of my tour. I started as an infantry soldier in an air mobile infantry platoon, and we, you know, we fought, in the jungles and rubber plantations of, what was known as three corps, not far from, Saigon. And and then I moved to a door gunner on a UE gunship. And UE gunship, I asked a few people this morning and they thought it might be worth just mentioning what it was. So Bell helicopter made the one Iroquois helicopter, and it was adapted and Vietnam was adapted as a a weapons platform. So the ship the the chopper that I flew on had six belt fed m 60 belt fed machine guns and 22.75 rock millimeter rockets. So it was a pretty lethal machine, and we were in close support of a pretty vicious firefight on the ground. And we expended most of our ammunition in support of that, and we got a call from the ground commander. And he said, Dust Off, that's Medevac helicopter, couldn't get in. And he asked us to come and see what we could do about getting some wounded soldiers out. And without hesitation, I didn't have much to do with it, but without hesitation, those pilot that pilot put pushed that cyclic stick forward and just moved into the ground position, taking fire the whole time, moved in to pick up three wounded soldiers. And for that, I received this army commendation medal with fixed v device for valor. I didn't have a lot to do with it, but we were there. We helped to load the wounded soldiers. We saved three lives that day, and I'll never forget it. Never. So keep in mind, gave all all gave some, and some gave all. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members, we have three senate bills for referral this morning. The first is senate bill 197 which is an act relating to establishing a primary care payment reform program introduced by Senator Lyons and others. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: S197, an act relating to payment reform for primary care.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Now the bill has been read the first time and is referred to the committee on health care. Senate bill two thirty two is an act relating to public libraries and the department of libraries introduced by senator Hardy and others. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: S two thirty two, an act relating to public libraries and the department of libraries.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Now the bill has been read the first time and is referred to the committee on government operations and military affairs. And finally senate bill three twenty seven is an act relating to economic development introduced by the senate committee on economic development housing and general affairs. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: S three twenty seven, an act relating to economic development.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Now the bill has been read the first time and is referred to the committee on commerce and economic development. Members we now have a house resolution to take up at this time. House resolution five is a house resolution reaffirming the abiding friendship between the state of Vermont and The Republic Of China, Taiwan on the twenty seventh anniversary of the Vermont Taiwan sister state relationship and supporting enhanced Vermont Taiwan bilateral relations and Taiwan's participation in international organizations introduced by representative granting of Jericho and others. Please listen to the reading of the resolution by title only.

[Reading Clerk (name not specified)]: HR 15. House resolution reaffirming the abiding friendship between the state of Vermont and The Republic Of China Taiwan on the twenty seventh anniversary of the Vermont Taiwan sister state relationship and supporting enhanced Vermont Taiwan bilateral relations and Taiwan's participation in international organizations.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Now this resolution has been read and is placed on the calendar for action on the next legislative day pursuant to house rule 52. Members we have received a request to read a house concurrent resolution that the house and senate adopted pursuant to the consent calendar. HCR two twenty eight is a house concurrent resolution congratulating Ryan Kilborn on his selection as the recipient of the Vermont Forest Products Association Outstanding Management of Resources Award. Please listen to the reading of the resolution.

[Assistant/Reading Clerk (name not specified)]: Whereas one of the shining stars of the Vermont forestry industry is Ryan Kilborn whose Meadows and Timberlands has employed as who Meadows and Timberlands has employed as a forest resource manager since 2013, and he also works for independent clients. And whereas a 2005 forestry and wildlife biology graduate of University of Vermont, he is one of the US Department of Agriculture Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services technical service providers, a Vermont tree farm inspector, and a licensed herbicide applicator. And whereas Ryan Kilborn serves as a forestry resource manager across Northern Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York, has overseen more than 120 timber sales, and when working with his landowner clients, emphasizes creative and forward looking management goals, balancing economic viability, recreation, conservation, and ecological resilience. And whereas he is adept at the development of high quality sugar woods, the integration of mountain bike trail systems, and the enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services while always cognizant of the landowners objectives. And whereas Ryan Kilburn is a dedicated forestry educator who routinely takes the lead in advising his clients and the broader public regarding the fundamental importance of practicing sustainable forestry. And as member in the Forest Stewards Guild reflects that organization's similar forest management perspective. And whereas in recognition of his superb record as a forest resource manager, Ryan Kilborn is the recipient of the Vermont Forest Products Association outstanding management of resources award, and he is the Vermont nominee for a similar honor from the Northeastern Loggers Association. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the senate and house of representatives that the general assembly congratulates Ryan Kilborn on his selection as the Vermont as the recipient of the Vermont Forest Products Association outstanding management of resources award and wishes him every success in the MELA's awards selection process. And be it further resolved that the secretary of state be directed to send a copy of this resolution to Ryan Kilborn.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any announcements member from Stowe?

[Representative Jed Lipsky]: Madam speaker, we just heard the resolution congratulating Ryan Kilborn as the as win winning the 2025 Vermont Forest Products Association outstanding management of resources award. It is my great pleasure to say a few words about someone who represents the very best of what our forest products community stands for. Ryan is a forester with Meadows End Consulting, working out of East Orange, Vermont. He earned his forestry and wildlife biology degree from UVM back in 2025. In the years since, he's built a career managing forest lands across Northern Vermont and New Hampshire, sitting down with landowners and listening to their goals and putting together plans that work for the land and the people who depend on it. Whether he's developing a sugar bush, laying out mountain bike trails, or improving wildlife habitat, he brings the same care and thoughtfulness to every project. Madam speaker, what makes Ryan stand out is that he's not just a skilled forester, he is an educator. He takes the time to help landowners and communities understand why active forest management matters. And that kind of patient, hands on work is exactly what our working landscape needs right now. At a time when Vermont's forest products industry faces real challenges, Ryan's work is a sign of hope. His dedication reminds us that this industry still has a strong future, but the future depends on partnerships and investments between state government and the people on the ground who keep our working force working and our local economies healthy. Madam speaker, please join me in congratulating Brian Kilbourne who is seated in the gallery, and he's accompanied by several directors and members of the VFPA.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guests of the member from STOW please rise and be recognized? Are there any further announcements? Member from Cornwall.

[Representative Peter Conlon]: Madam speaker, I wanted to take a small moment on the member from Milton's final day as a as a state representative to thank him for his four years of thoughtful, open minded service to the House Education Committee and our state. He is a quiet person who listens, and then when he talks, offers constructive, helpful comments. More than once, he has broken logjams where I have failed. I know his decision has been painful, but it is good to know that our loss is Milton's gain and that his committee wishes him success in his service to his community. If you don't mind, madam speaker, I'd like to yield to the other member from Milton.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Milton.

[Representative Brenda Steady]: Madam speaker, today marks the end of the line for the member from Milton, the curtain call on his legislative career. He has chosen to fully dedicate his time to his duties as our town manager, a job that he is already flourishing in. As I stated on Tuesday of this week when the resignation when his resignation letter was read, I miss looking left and seeing my good friend not in his seat any longer. Chris Taylor has always been a rock for me. I've called him countless times for all kinds of things and he makes time makes the time to hear me out. If I need a second opinion on something, I call Chris Taylor. If I need a proofreading of something, I definitely call Chris Taylor. If I need to have a voice of reason, I call Chris Taylor. If I need someone to simply vent off steam to, I call Chris Taylor. I think you get the picture. I believe a majority of us have had the opportunity to interface with Chris Taylor and regardless of one's party affiliation or politics, I think most, if not all, would agree that Chris Taylor is simply just a quality stand up guy. He is thoughtful, respectful, courteous, patient, listens well, and thinks hard before speaking. What many of you don't know is that he has also has a phenomenal spouse and his wife, Jen. They're both quality human beings. May I read a quote from Muhammad Ali, madam You

[Representative Michael Morgan]: may.

[Representative Brenda Steady]: Muhammad Ali said, service to others is the rent you pay for for your room here on Earth, and I believe that Chris Taylor is the epitome of that quote. And unlike the member from New Newport City who is kind of a big deal, Chris Taylor is a big deal. I now yield to the member from Pultely.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Pultely.

[Representative Patricia McCoy]: Madam speaker, it seems as if we've had a lot of farewells this session. Today, we'll say goodbye to representative Chris Taylor of Milton. While Chris has only been a member since 2023, which probably seems like a lifetime to him, his terms have all been in the house committee on education. He was an integral part of getting the education bill out of the house last year, serving on the committee of conference, and ultimately seeing acts 73 come to fruition. Those who know representative Taylor know he is a quiet inter introspective person, always listening to everyone before he speaks. Earning the respect of his committee and this body, he was appointed vice chair of education after only one term. He is a team player always looking for compromise. He leaves the house today still trying for compromise on an education bill. Appointed as town manager of the town of Milton after Don Turner's passing, people said he had a lar he had large shoes to fill, and fill them he has. The town of Milton was wise in their choices of town managers. Representative Taylor has earned the respect of the select board, the staff, all of the employees, and most especially the citizens of the town of Milton. That in and of itself speaks volumes to representative Taylor's character, knowledge, work ethic, and ability to get into the weeds to get things done. The town of Milton is lucky to have representative Taylor. This house, his constituency, and the great citizens of the state of Vermont will lose a champion for Vermonters today. Farewell, good luck, and godspeed, Chris.

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

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Madam speaker, today I have a group of civic students from Richard High School visiting with their teacher, miss Erickson, and I would like you to help me welcome them to the chamber.

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

[Representative Ashley Bartley]: Thank you madam speaker. If you just forgive me for holding up my computer. I just want to announce where the standings are for March Madness. Because if I don't, I'm pretty sure I'm going to get some sort of text message or angry email from the former member of Chitin. So right now in top for men's, we have John Zonin, Adam Norton, and

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: the member

[Representative Ashley Bartley]: from Burlington or representative Duke. I don't know what district we serve. And then for the women,

[Representative Lisa Hango]: it is currently neck and neck for number one, the former member from Chitin and

[Representative Ashley Bartley]: representative Morris. And then I have been asked to also include that transportation off the rails is lucky number 13. And I would request that the members notes be journalized. All

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: three of them.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Fairfax moves that we journalize the remarks of the member from Cornwall, the member from Milton and the member from Pulteney. 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 journalized the remarks of the member from Cornwall, member from Milton, and the member from Pulteney. Member from Randolph.

[Representative Jonathan Cooper]: Madam Speaker, we have two international students visiting the State House today. Shreya Roy from Bangladesh who's living with a host family in Berlin and Amanda from Chile who's living with a host family in Putney. Amanda is here with her host family brother Max Nestle and they're accompanied by their AFS volunteer, Tina Odell of Brookfield. They're here in the balcony and I hope you all give them a warm welcome.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guests of the member from Randolph please rise and be recognized? Are there any further announcements? Member from Milton.

[Representative Brenda Steady]: Madam speaker, unfortunately, saw the former member from Standard appears to have departed, but I just wanted to recognize to this body that the fact that my generation that came back from our conflicts received a whole lot different reception than his, and I do understand that plate and how a lot of the Vietnam vets feel, and I I think most of you get that and understand that. So I just always every year when he does that, I just like to recognize the fact that it's time they get their due, and I salute that service.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none. Orders of the day. Members, it is, my mission for us to get through the entire calendar today. The first group of bills we will be taking up will be House Bill nine fifty one which is the budget followed by House Bill six fifty seven. No six, yes. Six fifty seven, enabling unaccompanied homeless youth to obtain certain services without parental consent. Followed by House Bill nine thirty eight which is establishing the Vermont homelessness response continuum. So that's H nine fifty one, H six fifty seven, and H nine thirty eight. So we will begin with house bill nine fifty one which is an act relating to making appropriations for the support of government. Prior to third reading, the member from Springfield, representative Emmons offers an amendment to the bill that the first assistant clerk emailed to members this morning. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Springfield.

[Representative Alice M. Emmons]: Madam speaker, this amendment I am offering but I'm offering it on behalf of the house corrections and institutions committee. We are in the process of finalizing our capital budget. We're a little bit later this year because we've been doing so much work on correctional issues and we will be voting out the capital bill today. There is a section of our capital budget that we have general fund dollars that pay for our projects. And we allocate those dollars to those projects within our capital bill. And those projects and the cash, the general fund also has to be appropriated by the appropriations committee and we do that within the appropriations bill. So this is what the amendment does. And this language will also be in the capital bill as well. But what the amendment does is to the big bill, the appropriations bill, is it would allow an appropriation from the big bill for $23,418,455 This is the governor's recommend. In this particular year, we have more general fund than we have in the past. What the amendment does, if you look on your emails, it is there. It does list where we have allocated those general fund dollars to particular projects in the capital bill. So that's what this amendment does. It does not change the amount that the governor proposed in the capital bill for general fund dollars to be used for capital construction projects. We have maybe adjusted some of the amounts and maybe added a few things, but it does not change the total from the governor's recommended budget. Your corrections and institutions committee supports this amendment, and we ask support of the body.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member for Middlebury.

[Representative Amy Sheldon]: Madam speaker, we thank, the chair of corrections and institutions and her committee for bringing this amendment to our attention in time for us to vote it out today. On a straw poll, our committee heard it this morning on a straw poll of eleven zero zero. We support this amendment. Thank you.

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

[Representative Anne B. Donahue]: Madam speaker, I'm I'm very pleased to see the connection between these two, in particular regarding one item. And, if members have the, are looking at the amendment, this would be item J under these capital projects. And it's actually planning money for the Department for Children and Families Youth Short Term Stabilization Facility. And although the language may be different, it's the same reference that's called the Green Mountain Youth Campus in the underlying appropriations bill in section E300. Point one on page 139 of the bill as introduced, the appropriations bill. This is a really important project. It is really important that we continue to work as rapidly as possible on resolving difficult situations since the Woodside facility, for, children involved in the justice system was closed. It was appropriately closed because of the conditions and problems there. But we were left without a secure facility which for some small number of children may be necessary. But there are significant problems that have arisen. And you heard them referenced the other day briefly when the appropriations bill was reviewed. The Department of Children and Families has done presentations on various components of replacement of what's referred to as the high end system of care. That goes beyond the 15 beds that this project addresses. And it actually totals 44 beds for highest level needs for children. The majority of them, but not all of them having encounters with the justice system. The appropriations bill references 41 beds, but in addition, we have the three beds that just opened or is in the process of opening in Southeastern Vermont. And the problem is that the justification for needing that many new secure beds has never been clearly presented. They've been presented as independent projects, but when you add them into the total number of new beds for these purposes, it's a significantly higher number than many people believe are necessary. This body has asked two years in a row for an explanation of how that number as a totality, as an integrated number rather than individual programs in individual departments was developed. And perhaps more importantly for many of us is the cost involved because we have yet to ever receive any projection of the total cost of implementing this system. So we have a planning cost in this current amendment for one component, what's called the youth short term stabilization facility. But we have no idea what that project may cost in the long run, not even a guesstimate, nor for the other components, of this system. What we do know just as of this spring is that the three beds opening this spring cost $2,000,000 for rehab of an existing building for three children. And we also know that the contract for a provider, to serve those beds, to provide the care, to the children there that was signed is, as you heard the other day, $4,000 per day per child or actually per bed whether or not there's a child placed there. That is a staggering, staggering, cost. Inpatient psychiatric hospitalization, is one third less expensive than what this new program is going to cost. If you start multiplying that over 44 beds, you'll see why there has been significant concern, raised by your committee on human services about our continuing to not receive requested information about where this may bring us as an outcome. And that's why, Madam Speaker we were very, gratified that the Appropriations Committee included the language which refers in part to this specific money that it should not be expended until we get the information that we've been asking. Whether that comes to the the Joint Fiscal Oversight Committee during the off session, or at whatever point we get that and can understand where these pieces are leading us. So, I think it's very helpful that this language is part of the budget so that the language saying you can't spend this until you give us the information we need to make educated decisions, ties in, to this, budget line, in the amendment being presented. So I thank both committees for the attentiveness to this really critical issue.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Springfield, member from Burlington?

[Representative Brian Cina]: Madam speaker, may I interrogate the, presenter of the amendment?

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

[Representative Brian Cina]: Madam speaker, I noticed $1,250,000 is being designated for women's replacement facilities. I have not seen on the agenda of the committee this topic for discussion yet. So I'm wondering what the plan is for this money.

[Representative Alice M. Emmons]: Madam speaker, we have been looking for approximately seven years to replace the current Chitney facility that houses our women offenders. We were looking at land in Essex that the state owned for a couple of years. That fell through this past fall. So the Department of Buildings and General Services and the Department of Corrections is still committed to replacing our women's facility. What they are looking at now is what is the best step to move forward. Replacing this facility, regardless of what the size will be, because we will have an incarcerated section, but we will also have a section for folks who are close to their minimum that would go into a reentry facility to access work programs out in the community possibly, program opportunities

[Representative Jubilee McGill]: out in

[Representative Alice M. Emmons]: the community possibly. So that's what we're looking at. We need to figure out how we're going to move forward, where we're going to place this. It will be a very, very expensive project. We are looking at over $100,000,000 for this. We need to start putting money aside to meet our commitment. This is going to be a long term process and there's going to be a lot more discussion happening at this point. But right now the Department of Buildings and General Services and the Department of Corrections are working together to figure out the next step. And over the summer, Joint Justice Oversight Committee, I'm sure will be looking at this. And come next January, when we're back here, we will be taking this back up in the capital bill.

[Representative Brian Cina]: Madam speaker, would it be fair to say then that the appropriation in this amendment is going into the bucket to be saved up for the facility that we are hoping to have a plan for soon? Yes. Alright. Thank you, member. The

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

[Reading Clerk (name not specified)]: H nine fifty one. An act relating to making appropriations for the support of the government.

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

[Representative Patricia McCoy]: Madam speaker, as I stated yesterday, this budget includes 41 time appropriations and more if other bills are included. It raises our base by more than 7,000,000 over the governor's proposal. All in, this document funds almost 20,000,000 in additional appropriations. And to do that, it raids the technology fund. In the meantime, the agency of transportation made the difficult decision to rift 35 employees. 35 Vermonters now without employee employment. In order to deal with the $30,000,000 deficit the transportation fund faces. I will vote no for 20,000,000 reasons, and when the vote is taken, I request it be taken by roll.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Pulte requests that when the vote is taken, it be taken by rolls. Member sustained. The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? Member from Essex Junction.

[Representative Lori Houghton]: Madam speaker, h nine fifty one is a fiscally responsible budget that invests in Vermonters in every corner of the state. I want to remind members how we got to this vote. The governor creates a recommended budget and sends to the house. All committees, all of us here, dive into our policy pieces, taking testimony to ensure state funded programs are working for Vermonters and then sends recommendations to house appropriations. House appropriation, they hold public hearings, they listen to committees, and they take their own testimony. And then house appropriation decides I should say, debates and then decides amongst themselves. This year, their vote is unanimous, eleven zero. I encourage members to vote yes, not only for Vermonters, but for house appropriations, exhaustive, bipartisan, and unanimous work.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Arsenault, Williston.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes. Two minutes. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? I would like to remind members that we are in the middle of a roll call vote. Members and guests are prohibited from using computers, phones or any type of an electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes and conversation during a roll call. And when the clerk calls your name, please answer in a loud and clear voice so that the clerk can accurately record your votes. The question is, shall the bill pass? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Austin of Colchester, Bailey of Hyde Park, Bartholomew of Heartland. Yep. Bartley of Fairfax. No. Rebecca Bunuski. Yes. Birong of Regents.

[Representative Brenda Steady]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Bishop of Colchester. Yes. Black of Essex? Yes. Bloomley of Burlington?

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Bosland of Westminster?

[Representative Alice M. Emmons]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Bosch at Clarendon? No. Boonton of Berry City? Yes. Boyden of Cambridge? Brady of Williston. Yes. Branagan of Georgia. No. Brigham of Saint Albans

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle]: Town. No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Brown in Richmond. Yes. Burditt at West Rutland. Burkhardt at South Burlington. Yes. Burrows of West Windsor.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Burditt Cabot. Campbell of Saint Johnsbury.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Canfield of Fair Haven. Carris Duncan of Whitingham. Casey Montpelier.

[Representative Conor Casey]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Casey Hubbardton. No. Chapin at East Montpelier. Charlton at Chester. Christie of Hartford. Gina of Burlington.

[Representative Brenda Steady]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Coffin and Cavendish. No. Cole of Hartford.

[Assistant/Reading Clerk (name not specified)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Conlon and Cornwall. Yes. Cooper Pownall. Yes. Corcoran of Bennington. Yes. Critchlow of Colchester. Yes. Demar of Enosburg. Dickinson of Saint Albans Town. Yes. Dobrovich of Williamstown. No. Dodge of Essex. Yes. Dolan of Essex Junction. Yes. Dolgin of Saint Johnsbury. Donahue of Northfield?

[Representative Anne B. Donahue]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Duke of Burlington?

[Representative Anne B. Donahue]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Durfee of Shaftsbury? Yes. Eastes of Guilford?

[Reading Clerk (name not specified)]: Yes. Evans

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: of Springfield? Yes. Feltus of Linden? Yes. Galfetti at Barrytown? Yes. Garifano of Essex? Yes. Goldman of Rockingham? Yes. Goodnight, Brattleboro? Yes. Ghost Lane on Northfield? Branagan Jericho? Yes. Greer Bennington? Yes. Gregoire Fairfield? Angle of Berkshire? Harpolo Glover? Harvey of Castleton.

[Representative Brenda Steady]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Hedrick of Burlington.

[Assistant/Reading Clerk (name not specified)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Higley of Lowell. Holcomb of Norwich. Yes. Cooper Randolph. No. Houghton of Essex Junction. Yes. Howard of Rutland City? Yes. Holland of Rutland Town? No. Hoard of Hartford? Yes. Hunter Manchester? Yes. James of Manchester?

[Representative Kathleen James]: Yes. I'd like to.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Kasenska Burke? Keyser, Rutland City. No. Kimball Woodstock. Yes. Klepner, Burlington.

[Representative Bram Kleppner]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Kornheiser, Brattleboro. Yes. Cresno, South Burlington.

[Representative Alice M. Emmons]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Labor, Morgan. Lally of Shelburn? Yes. Malone to South Burlington? Yes. Lamonta Morristown? Larusha Franklin? Yes. Lipsky of Stowe?

[Representative Jed Lipsky]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Logan of Burlington?

[Representative Anne B. Donahue]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Long and Newfane. Yes. Leaders of Lincoln. Yes. Luno of Saint Albany City. No. Maguire of Rutland City. No. Malay of Pittsburgh. Mark on the Coventry. Yes. Maslyn of Thetford. Yes. McKenna Montpelier. Yes. McCoy of Portney. No. McFawn of Berrytown. McGill of Burtport? Yes. Nicholas of Milton? Mollie of Callis? Yes. Meniere of South Burlington? Yes. Morgan Ela Milton? No. Morgan Emma Milton? Springfield? Yes. Mercy Bennington? No. Mora Weston? Yes. Roeke Aputney? Yes. Nelson of Derby? No. Nelson of Brandon? No. Nigro Bennington?

[Representative Michael Nigro]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Martha Farrisburg. I'm sorry. Thank you. Mollie S. Volkhardt.

[Representative Bram Kleppner]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: New Jersey. I'm saying South Burlington. Yes. O'Brien of Tunbridge. Yes. O'Dea Burlington. Oliver of Sheldon. Wilson of Starksboro. Yeah. Page in Newport City. Yeah. Parsons in Newbury. No. Pezzo of Colchester.

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Pintanada Dorset? No. Poutin Hinesburg?

[Assistant/Reading Clerk (name not specified)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Powers of Waterford? No. Priestley Bradford? Yes. Richard Pollack? No. Wendy of Linden? Rachel's under Burlington. Yes. Secwitz Randolph. Yes. Shy of Middlebury. Yes. Sheldon of Middlebury. Yes. Seville of Dover.

[Representative Patricia McCoy]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Southworth Of Walden. No. Squirrel Of Underhill. Steady Milton.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: No more explanation.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Stevens Waterbury.

[Representative Tom Charlton]: Yes, there's no.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Stone Of Burlington?

[Representative Mary-Katherine Stone]: Yes, there's

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Sweeney of Shelburne?

[Representative Anne B. Donahue]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Tiger L. Corcoran? Taylor Milton. No. Taylor Mendon. Thompson Aminuski. Yes. Torrey Martown. Yes. Walker Swanton. Wises like a very city. Yes. Walls Of Brownington. No. White Of Whitesfield. Yes. Witter Bethel. Winter Of Ludlow. Witter Waterbury.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Yacovonia Morristown. Bailey Yes. Of High Park. Carris Duncan of Whitingham. Chapin East Montpelier. Christine Hartford. Gregory of Fairfield. Higley of Low. Lamona Morristown, Nicholas of Milton, Walker Swanton, White Bethel, and Winter Of Ludlow.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: For purpose of explanation, member from Colchester.

[Representative Doug Bishop]: Madam speaker, today we have approved a budget that despite tremendous financial pressures holds just a 1.6% increase from the current fiscal year. This is a budget that virtually mirrors a difficult budget work done by our state agencies and reflects the needs of Vermonters as expressed by two co equal branches of state government. I am particularly thankful for the funds that support Colchester and nine other towns to the invaluable services offered and provided through the community outreach program.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Essex Junction.

[Representative Jubilee McGill]: H 95 is a fiscally responsible budget that was passed unanimously by house appropriations. This budget invests in every corner of Vermont through a thoughtful, comprehensive approach that lifts up all Vermonters.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Guilford.

[Representative Zon Eastes]: I vote yes on h nine five one. This stressful time requires thoughtfulness, careful analysis, and leadership. I trust the committee, its process, as well as the input of hundreds of multi partisan voices.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Essex.

[Representative Rey Garofano]: The state fiscal year twenty seven budget, which was voted out of the appropriations committee unanimously, reflects the difficult but necessary work of balancing Vermont's priorities with responsible fiscal stewardship. And makes important investments in the services Vermonters rely on while carefully managing limited resources in a challenging fiscal environment. For these reasons, I voted yes on h nine fifty one.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Rockingham.

[Representative Leslie Goldman]: Madam speaker, I vote yes to support the budget. The appropriations committee has worked countless hours over the last months. They listen to policy committee recommendations. They listen to advocates. They listen to Vermonters. The resulting budget was voted out of committee unanimously on an eleven zero vote. This bipartisan vote clearly shows support for Vermonters in every corner of the state. I thank them for their tireless work.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Berkshire.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Madam speaker, I voted yes to support the thoughtful, deliberative work of the appropriations committee which our committee saw firsthand. The extensive inquiry that the members of h a c engaged in went above and beyond and I respect how difficult their decisions were.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Glover.

[Representative Leanne Harple]: Madam speaker, I voted for this budget because it is a fiscally responsible and balanced budget which was voted out unanimously from appropriations and invests in Vermonters from every corner of the state. At a time when I see so many of my neighbors struggling to make ends meet, this is not a time to defund our government and to kick them while they're down by turning our backs on them and further cutting critical services. I voted yes to protect my community in their time of greatest need.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member for Manchester.

[Representative Kathleen James]: Madam speaker, this is a balanced and responsible budget based on months of work, extensive testimony, and public comment, the recommendations of the executive branch and our policy committees, and the laudable unanimous approval of our house appropriations committee, and I'm grateful for that. I vote yes to support that thoughtful collaboration and these vital investments that reach every corner of Vermont.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Milton.

[Representative Michael Morgan]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Michael Morgan]: My no vote is for the Vermonters that struggle to pay their property taxes. I stand with governor Scott and his staff and the representatives that voted no today. We can leave this chamber today with our heads held high, knowing we are working hard to make Vermont affordable. I worry with an increased state budget, we will cause more homelessness, and we will cause people to leave our wonderful state. As I hear governor Scott say often, we can do better for our.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Waterbury.

[Representative Edward "Teddy" Waszazak]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, I vote yes. This was a budget created under the circumstances of austerity. But I especially vote yes for the 41 time appropriations not included in the governor's recommend. Those one time appropriations will feed Vermonters, keep Vermonters in their home, and provide health care to Vermonters who lost their insurance due to the cruelty of federal tax cuts. I would rather spend $20,000,000 for these things rather than a billion dollars a day on a misbegotten war.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And member from Burlington.

[Representative Abbey Duke]: Madam speaker, at its core, this is a fiscally responsible budget that was approved unanimously by appropriations. I voted yes because behind every number is a person, every person a story, and every story over monitor. This budget meets the moment with care and responsibility, supporting our communities while respecting taxpayers, and that's why I'm proud to support it.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Waterbury.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: You may.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Madam speaker, we've heard about V Trans employees who have lost their jobs, and I'm sorry about that. This budget represents cuts across all of human services, including losses of jobs and services. Yet this budget does its best to support vulnerable Vermonters, and I appreciate the balance the appropriations committee achieved, and I say yes to support the committee's work and all of Vermonters.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Castleton.

[Representative Zachary Harvey]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Zachary Harvey]: Vermonters across our state are making tough decisions and tightening their own budgets. I cannot support this one that fails to do the same.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Linden.

[Representative Martha Feltus]: Madam madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Martha Feltus]: Thank you. Developing our f y twenty seven budget has been a very difficult and yet collaborative endeavor. Needs of our most felt vulnerable Vermonters have been considered, and I have concluded that we have made a reasonable and responsible decision.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Middlebury.

[Representative Amy Sheldon]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Amy Sheldon]: Madam speaker, the f y twenty seven budget garnered a unanimous bipartisan vote from the house appropriations committee representing months of hard work, difficult decisions, and compromise. I find it ironic that those who support throwing taxpayers under the bus with a one year buy down of property taxes with no plan for what to do next choose to vote against a bipartisan thoughtfully crafted budget because they don't like using $9,000,000 of one time money to support some of our most vulnerable Vermonters, including those who are deaf and blind, those without health insurance, the elderly, and those who are hungry. Knowing this money will not be available the following year gives organizations and state agencies time to plan. I vote yes to a fiscally responsible budget that supports Vermonters in all four corners of our state.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member oh, member from Burlington.

[Representative Bram Kleppner]: May I explain my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Bram Kleppner]: Thank you. This budget in represents an increase of roughly 1.6% versus last year. Inflation in The United States right now is running at a full point above that. So in real dollars, this budget represents a decrease. It is perfectly appropriate and rigorous to the austere times we find ourselves in. A budget that is a real dollar decrease from the year before is not an extravagant or wasteful budget in any way.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members, please oh, member from Putney.

[Representative Michael Mrowicki]: Thank you, madam speaker. I vote yes, noting our job was made that much harder by the failed policies of the current president as they roost on states from tariffs to Canadian oppressive policies, the budget cuts, and now another Mideast war costing 1,000,000,000 a day leading to more federal cuts to states.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members, please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 97. Those voting no, 40. The ayes have it and you have passed the bill. Next we'll turn to House Bill six fifty seven which is an act relating to enabling unaccompanied homeless youth to obtain certain services without parental consent. 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 Northfield, representative Donahue will speak for the committee and then affecting the revenue of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on ways and means which recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on human services. The member from Barrie City representative will speak for that committee And then carrying an appropriation, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations which also recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on human services. The member from Burlington, representative Bluemle will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Reading Clerk (name not specified)]: H six five seven, an act relating to enabling unaccompanied homeless youth to obtain certain services without parental consent.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue]: Madam speaker, I am so frankly thrilled, to be reporting this bill to the body. It's been several years in the making with significant actions in it to help those of our young people facing the most difficult of struggles. There are seven main components to the bill, different specific areas. And I will be sharing the reporting of them. But the subjects broadly speaking that they cover are enabling families with children to save money as they regain their footing, protecting the benefits of children in foster care for their future transition to adulthood, creating a way for 16 and 17 year olds surviving on their own to get the services they need, protecting youth in the Department of Children and Family Services from unnecessary restraints when being transported, creating legal standards for the first time for the use of restraint and seclusion for youth in state custody and residential programs, identifying the court process needed for federal funding for older youth, and protecting those who are expecting babies from inappropriate government monitoring. Madam speaker, I thought about introducing this bill by regaling the body with stories of my own experiences years ago doing street out outreach to some of the young people in our country most disconnected, crawling through the steam tunnels under New York's Grand Central Station to bring baloney sandwiches to homeless kids. But lived experience, sharing from the heart doesn't mean seeing it from a provider perspective. It means seeing it from having lived it. That's the perspective you need to hear as we talk about the importance of this bill and how it reaches out to protect young people. So to fully introduce the bill, I'm turning it over to a person who can truly share from the heart to introduce it. I yield to the member from Bridgeport.

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

[Representative Jubilee McGill]: Thank you, madam speaker, and I thank the member. Madam speaker, I want you to think about a 16 year old in Bennington County. She has been bouncing between distant relatives, friends, couch to couch since her mother passed away. She is not in anyone's custody. She has no active guardian. She wakes up every day and figures out how to get herself to school, how to feed herself, where she will sleep the next night, how to survive because no one else is there doing it for her. Before her mom passed, she got her permit and she works really hard to earn her driver's license. She studies and she practices and she passes that road test on the first try. And then, because she can't get a guardian's signature for her license, because the person who was supposed to be responsible for her is simply not there, that piece of paper key to security and stability expires in her hands. A milestone she earned is gone. And now she must wait and delay that goal another two years until her eighteenth birthday. This is not a hypothetical. This was a story just shared with our committee and testimony. And stories like it are happening in every corner of our state. H six fifty seven is a bill about children. It is about what we as a state are willing to do or willing to allow in the lives of Vermont's most vulnerable young people. And when I look across its sections, I see one through line. Every piece of this bill is about reducing and preventing trauma and creating opportunity. Far too many young in Vermont are navigating systems that were never designed for the reality they are living in. Young people who are sleeping on couches or in cars, raising themselves without consistent adult support, moving through foster care without options for future future financial stability, or growing up in families where one unexpected crisis can push them deeper into poverty. And too often, instead of helping, our systems create more barriers. Every section of this bill reflects someone we have met or heard about. A young person trying to stay in school while figuring out where they will sleep that night, a parent doing everything right but being told they cannot save for a car without losing the very benefits that help them survive. And young people already in state care who have experienced trauma long before entering the system, who need responses that support healing, trust, and long term stability. We heard clearly and testimony that when policy gets it wrong, young people don't just struggle, they fall through the cracks. We heard about the importance of ensuring that when children are transported across the state, it is done in a way that minimizes stress and specs their dignity. We heard about the need for clear, consistent standards about restraint and seclusion so that responses to challenging situations prioritize safety while also recognizing the impact these experiences can have on a young person who may already carry significant trauma. This moves this bill moves us towards that balance, supporting safety while also reducing the risk of additional harm. And we know why that matters. When we do not intervene early, the outcomes are stark. Young people leaving systems without stability are far more likely to struggle with housing, employment, and long term well-being. Without support, youth homelessness often becomes adult homelessness, which becomes chronic homelessness. Here in Vermont, homelessness has grown dramatically in recent years. We also heard that right now, youth are a significant often invisible part of that reality. Couch surfing doubled up and doing everything they can to stay in school and move forward without the familiar familiar support many of us have taken for granted in our lives. This bill creates a more flexible, more responsive approach. One that recognizes reality and provides support without immediately escalating intervention. And it's not just about the young people, it is about the adults who want to help them. Right now, there's often uncertainty about what is allowed, whether it is a provider, an educator, or a community member trying to support a young person in crisis. This bill provides clarity so that people can respond in good faith with appropriate safeguards when help is needed. Madam speaker, this bill does not pretend to solve everything, but it does something important. It shifts our approach from systems that unintentionally create hardships to systems that better support stability. Because if we do not act, we are choosing to maintain a system where a young person can do everything right and still be denied a basic opportunity because no adult is there to sign a form where families are prevented from building stability and where young people face unnecessary barriers at the moment they need support the most. This bill is about dignity, it is about prevention, and it is about making sure that in Vermont, our systems respond to young people and families in ways that support their their safety, their stability, and their future. We'll now turn to the specific sections of the bill. This bill is a strike all amendment of the original bill, and so there are a lot of sections and we'll bounce around a little bit. Madam speaker, section one, this section is about a simple but harmful contradiction in our system. We tell families to work towards stability, but then we punish them when they try to save. You can help, but only if you stay broke. That is not economic mobility, that is a trap. Transportation was identified as the number one barrier to workforce entry and economic mobility in the 2025 reach up evaluation report affecting forty two percent of Reach Up participants. The asset limits stands directly in the way of solving both of those problems. Vermont has already eliminated asset limits for Three Squares Vermont in fuel assistance. This section brings reach up up in line with those programs and allows families to save for essential needs like housing, transportation, and education. Section one sorry. I had to get the calendar. I forgot to update my page numbers. Section one of this bill starts on page one six five nine of your calendar and it amends 33 VSA sub 11 o three by removing the language about the asset limit and it directs AHS to fully eliminate the limit for the reach up program for purposes of both initial and continuing eligibility. This section does not change benefit levels or any other eligibility requirements. It simply removes the requirement that a family spend down savings before they can qualify for help. And now, madam speaker, I will yield to the member from Danville for the next section of the bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Bridgeport yields to the member from Danville. Volkhardt. Thank you. Member from Vulcan.

[Unidentified Representative from Danville]: Thank you, member. I will be reporting on section two of the bill that can be found at the top of page sixteen sixty in today's calendar. This section of the bill addresses a simple issue, whose money is it? For too long, when children in foster care receive Social Security benefits, whether because a parent has died, become disabled, or through the child's own disability. These funds have been used by the state to offset the cost of the child's care. This section makes it clear that moving forward, Vermont is choosing a different approach. This section starts with definitions of key terms. What we mean by Social Security benefit, what constitutes foster care, and the role of representative payee. It also defines qualified able accounts, which allow individuals with disabilities to save for their future without jeopardizing their eligibility for essential federal benefits. The heart of the section is four forty nine zero seven, and it does something important. It says that the Department of Children and Families shall not use the child's Social Security benefits to reimburse the state for the cost of the child's care. Just like children in state custody who are not eligible for Social Security benefits. That is a significant policy choice. It reflects the committee's belief that the benefits belong to the child and not the system. The bill recognizes that federal rules around Social Security that limit the amount of assets a child can have, So it allows the department to make necessary actions to ensure the child does not lose eligibility for critical supports. If the child has unmet needs, something beyond what the state is already obligated to provide, Perhaps they wanna play hockey or wanna take an art class. The funds can be used to prepare for those needs at this at the request of the child or the foster parent. And the bill puts structure and accountability in place. The department still serves as the representative payee and must act in the best interest of the child, establishing appropriate accounts, monitoring federal limits, and ensuring funds are either used appropriately or conserved for the child's future. It requires the department to appeal any denied Social Security application because access to these benefits can be life changing, and it requires annual accounting to the child, their family, and the office of the child youth and family advocate. Children in foster care are among the most vulnerable Vermonters. Many have experienced trauma, loss, and instability through new no fault of their own. When they are entitled to Social Security benefits, those funds often represent one of the few financial resources that truly belong to them, something that can help them transition into adulthood with stability. This section says we will protect that. We will not use those benefits to balance our books. We will be we will safeguard those resources, use them when necessary for their well-being, and preserve them for the future. This is a thoughtful and balanced approach, one that aligns with both federal requirements and the committee's values. I now yield back to the member from Bridgeport.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Wilco yields the member from Bridgeport.

[Representative Jubilee McGill]: Thank you, madam speaker. What does it mean to be a 16 or 17 years old in Vermont and have no active, engaged parent or guardian? It means you cannot open a bank account, you cannot, consent to services and shelter, you cannot, consent to medical care, medical care, or get that cavity looked at, you cannot get an ID, and without an ID, you can't get a job. Without a job, you can't support yourself, and without support, you are left vulnerable to unsafe situations no young person should face. Madam speaker, this section addresses that gap. These are young people already living independently here in Vermont, abandoned by family, fleeing unsafe homes, couch surfing, trying to stay in school, yet locked out of basic services because the the law assumes a parent is present. We heard clearly in testimony these young people are already navigating independence. The law has simply not caught up. And we must be honest about what happens if we do nothing. Nationally, suicide is the leading cause of death among homeless youth. Forty to fifty percent report suicidal ideation, and roughly eleven percent have attempted suicide in the past year. The rates of major depression and post traumatic stress disorder are three times higher among youth among these youth than their general population. And yet, only nine percent ever access supportive services they need, not because they don't need help, but because the system makes it almost impossible for them to do so. Trafficking, exploitation, these are not far away problems. It is the direct predictable consequence of leaving young people without legal pathways to safety, shelter, identification, and care. When young people cannot meet their basic needs safely, they are pushed into dangerous situations. Access to identification, employment, and care is one of the most effective ways to reduce that risk. Section four creates the path forward. It establishes a certification process that so that unaccompanied youth can access essential services, health care, identification, housing, education, and employment when no parent is available. It does not remove safeguards. It does not replace families where they exist. It simply ensures that when a young person is already out there on their own, they are not left without options. The question before us is simple. Do we ignore that reality or do we give them the tools to stay safe and move forward? This section chooses to see them and to support them. Section four adds a new subsection to 33 VSA forty nine zero eight, creating a certification process for unaccompanied youth. Starts off with the definition sections in a and then in b and moves on to describe who can certify youth. I will warn you, part of our amendments, we do update the definitions because we accidentally deleted, some pretty crucial parts of it out. Youth can be certified by school district, homeless liaisons, directors of emergency shelter or runaway homeless youth programs, continuum the director of continuum of care lead agency, the chief juvenile Defender, or the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. These are all mandated reporters with extensive training and continuing education in the care and support of vulnerable youth. Forty nine zero eight c covers the creation of this certification and what it gives a youth access to. With this certification, a youth may obtain a non driver ID, learner's permit, or driver's license at no charge. Obtain a vital event certificate, again, at no charge. Consent to medical and dental care. Consent to housing, shelter, and related services. Seek employment, purchase a vehicle, apply for student loans, and enroll in school, participate in school activities, open a bank account, and get access to services for victims of domestic or sexual violence. It then tasks the commissioner of financial regulation with establishing minimum standards so that financial institutions can legally serve unaccompanied youth without parental consent even if the youth lacks a permanent address. Subsection f outlines that providers and healthcare professionals who act in good faith are provided immunity from liability for contracting with a certified minor unless they act with gross negligence. This provision ensures their adults who want to help want to help, are not punished for stepping up. Section four a amends Vermont's unlawfuling unlawful sheltering statute to clarify that persons providing assistance under this section are not committing a crime. And then section five through eight, while several pages long, is necessary, to make the corresponding amendments to fee waiver statutes across DMV and vital records to implement the no cost ID and licensing provisions of the bill. I will now yield to the member from North Bill, Northfield for the next sections.

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

[Representative Anne B. Donahue]: Thank you, madam speaker. These next several sections of the bill deal with another very challenging topic, the use of restraint and seclusion for children. That's something none of us would ever wanna see, but it is sometimes unavoidable, unavoidable as a measure of last resort for safety, protect from danger. But we do need to make sure we have clear standards and oversight about that use. The first part of the amendment has to do with children being transported. That's an issue this body first addressed in 2005. And recognizing that many of you were not here at that time, I need to share with you the story of how we first changed the law or created the law on that issue. There was a 10 year old little boy in Rutland. He was having significant problems with his medications. He needed to be readmitted to the Brattleboro Retreat. But because he was from Rutland he had to first go to the Rutland Hospital for screening. That happened and it was agreed that he needed to be admitted. At that point a sheriff's officer showed up to provide the transportation and his father was aghast. He said, I I was gonna bring him down. He's he's not objecting. He's not refusing to go. And the hospital told them, well, that's that's policy. That's what's required. Then the father had his real shock. The sheriffs took out handcuffs, leg shackles, and a belly chain, a chain that goes around you and attaches to your handcuffs on this 10 year old little boy. That father rushed to a nearby pharmacy and bought one of those cardboard throwaway cameras. He then, we won't ask what his speed was, he drove down to the Brattleboro retreat to beat the sheriff's officer there and he took pictures of his little boy in those shackles being escorted. A picture can exchange for a thousand words. When that picture got to this body, the law was changed to say that the least restrictive measures necessary for safety is what should be used and that the policy of the state was that no mechanical restraints should ever be used unless circumstances dictated their necessity. But that laws had never been updated since 2005, was never more specific about how that be achieved, and data was only tracked for the first decade or so. Last year your Health and Human Services Committee asked for an update of that data because there was an escalating cost being presented in the budget for the cost of transportation of children in DCF custody. So we were concerned what was reflected in that, how were they being transported. Madam Speaker, it took a year to get the Department of Mental Health to be able to assemble the data. They weren't refusing it. They said they had to access it. They couldn't get it quickly. Well Madam Speaker, that made it really clear that they were not using that data for monitoring the trends or uses of restraints or secure transportation. We did get that information this year for the past five years, at least the core numbers. 1,206 children were transported by secure transport in the past five years. But of those, 529 were last year alone, a tripling from the number in 2024. Madam speaker, when the budget came before the committee both last year and this year for transportation, we were told that this major increase was because there was only one contracted entity that did secure transports, and in that way they they had bargaining control and so they were charging more. Clearly it was not only about that but the major increase in use. Under what standard of need? We don't know. In addition, the data showed that almost a 100 of those children were transported in mechanical restraints, including 44 of them in waste shackles, belly chains. But there was no breakdown of status, why they need to secure transport, even what age they were, and what their legal status were. Foster care, juvenile justice involved, no way of knowing. Since DCF was not tracking, it raises the questions of what standards are being used for restraints. Why no oversight? So the focus of this part of the bill is around amending that statute from 2005 to lay out standards for the key decision points of escalating uses of restraint requiring documentation for each of those decisions and oversight along with a clear reporting of the data. Madam speaker, to walk through this part of the bill, it begins on page sixteen sixty eight of today's calendar. And it begins with the definitions. One of the more important ones, the very first one is what does least restrictive mean? That term is used in a lot of different areas of law, in a lot of different categories. And it seemed important to say exactly what that does mean. Many of these definitions also appear in the separate section on restraint and seclusion in residential homes. So that's on page sixteen seventy three where it explains that it means the minimum intervention that's needed to prevent harm to a child or other, Maximizing a child's autonomy, ensuring that restrictions are proportionate to the risk of harm and that involuntary measures are only permitted as a last resort. The other definitions are also many of them are in the other section. Mechanical restraint simply means actual means other than holding a child, handcuffs and so forth. Secure restraint in this chapter means a locked vehicle that you can't exit from inside or a barrier from the driver's section or the simple use of law enforcement because to a child clearly that's an intimidating and secure means of transport. Soft restraints are referenced. Those are the same as mechanical restraints but they're ones that are designed to be softer, to be less physically harmful when used. Waste shackles is the term for what's colloquially sometimes known as belly chains. So this bill begins with the existing language about the requirement for appropriate means for safety that prevents psychological and and physical trauma whenever it's possible. That's a technical correction to match our other statute that addressed the same issue in 2005 about transport of people in a mental health crisis. And the fact that it recognizes the least restrictive means. Turning the page, section C is an enhancement of the language about the DCF designating which professionals can provide those transports. D is a new requirement that educational materials about what the law requirements are needs to be provided to those who have been designated for secure transport. E is really crucial. It's that secure transport itself should only be used when there's a determination and documentation about why it's necessary to prevent the risk of serious physical harm to the child or others based on an individualized risk assessment, not just a group of children with similar profile. The next part explaining soft mechanical restraints being what's preferred as the first option. Part of the reason for soft restraints is that it's not the same taint of criminality that a child out in the public being transported has automatically if they're in metal handcuffs like police would use in an arrest. And then section g goes through the steps of escalating forms of restraint and the fact that at each point there needs to be documentation. If soft restraints are required, why? Two, if soft restraints are not adequate, why and which restraints were then used in place? And waste shackles distinctly only if they are determined and documented as being the sole means of preventing harm. The use of waste shackles is prohibited on children age 12 or younger. And for ages 13 and older there needs to be a specific assessment and only by designated law enforcement who are trained in that use rather than the private contractors who also do secure transports. Section day is particularly important because it requires to the commissioner to ensure supervisory review by the department of that documentation required. K is the annual reporting restored on the number of secure transports and then detailed information about the profiles of these children, why they were, if they were transported with mechanical restraints, why, whether it was a private agency or law enforcement, the type of restraints, and the type of custody, that they were in. But section two is something important to understand because what it says is once the department has upgraded its technological capacity, we should get that same information for the use of secure restraint on a child, not just the use of, I'm sorry, secure transport, not just the use of restraints. We wanted that information now. We can't get it. The department says they can't get it because of an issue that many people are aware of already and that is their antiquated information system, technological system. We are one of the very last states in the country to adopt a new child welfare information system called CCWIS and as a result we're losing federal funds in many areas but it also means basic information like this cannot be gathered and used to monitoring safe practices. In addition, we learned something completely new. We learned that the sheriffs contracted by the department for transports are not the only sheriffs. They're different categories and that in fact the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs are the ones who provide transport when it's court ordered transport. It's a very small number, but it adds to the overall picture. And so we've asked them to also provide the information about those transports. It may be 12 or up to 20 a year, but we will have that data now. There will be in our amendment that's forthcoming some, changes to this because it doesn't make clear that this is only court ordered transport and we revise some of the information collecting to meet their abilities and the needs of their system. Section 10 is a one time report detailing how they've implemented the key parts of this statute. Section 11 is a new part that also raises our consciousness that there are children securely transported totally separate from the Department of Children's Services contracts. There are all sorts of occasions whether it's a child who's being transported for an initial hearing on abuse or neglect, a child being transported because of an allegation of delinquency. And there are no standards at all for that in terms of aligning with the state's public policy. And we were advised that this the Vermont Criminal Justice Council, through its use of force policy, is where they set those statewide transport standards, and that we should request them. This was actually a recommendation of the sheriffs that we ask that council to look at their current policies and see what need may need to be changed to specifically address, the needs of children. That completes the transportation section. And Madam Speaker, the next portion I'll be reporting on is the use of restraints and seclusion in our residential settings and for children under DCF custody. What's important to realize is that restraint and seclusion can often cause physical injury. There are types of restraint that are known to be the cause of deaths of children in state custody and always cause psychological trauma. It's meant as an intervention of last resort and we need to be sure that that is how we use them. It was the Office of Child Youth and Family Advocate that first raised this issue with us last year. We established that office just a few years ago to protect the children in custody in our state. It was not on our radar and we pledged that we were not going to let this biennium go by without addressing it. The key issues include the lack of data, the lack of a standardized cohesive reporting system, and the fact that reporting is therefore significantly underreporting. The youth advocates said they're improving in that regard. The number of instances of restraint or seclusion in 2023 that were reported were ninety two. 2024, three twenty four. This year, four sixty one. We have no way of knowing whether that was an increase in the use of those procedures or in terms of the specifics right now probably an increase in the reporting. But we also don't know how much larger that number might be, if there was full accurate systemic reporting. There's a need for greater transparency for the system and compared to other states, we have no standards in statute. It's all done by rule. Even regarding practices that are known to be the most harmful and the highest risk to children. We also have a significant serious issue with the lack of information with out of state contractors, with transparency, with getting information we need, both in terms of selecting contractors and monitoring care. And in terms of monitoring care, if we're sending children out of state because we don't have the program access for the type of needs those children have, we have an obligation to hold those programs accountable to the same standards and protections. So the focus in this part of the bill is on establishing key standards in statute, not rewriting existed policies although sometimes improving on them and then charging the Department of Children and Family to redo the current standards in rule that match the overarching, key standards. It also requires, more enhanced reporting requirements, data and transparency. So Madam Speaker this section begins on page sixteen seventy two of today's calendar. And in terms of the definitions, probably one of the most important ones here is what is the definition for this purpose of child. It's a child or children in

[Assistant/Reading Clerk (name not specified)]: the

[Representative Anne B. Donahue]: department's custody, but also any child receiving care in a program regulated by the department. So a child doesn't have to be in the custody of the department if they are being served in a program that's regulated by the department. They're entitled to those same protections. We've referenced mechanical and physical restraint. Prone restraint, the definition here is particularly important. Many states across the country have banned the use of prone restraint in all circumstances. There is one problem with doing that. Vermont has not done it for our schools or other programs the way most states have. But the problem that's been raised is that sometimes there is a need for a child to be initially held prone just until the situation enables the person who's doing the restraint to get them into a safe position, a momentary prone position. New Hampshire actually had a great model that we used which defines prone restraint as not including a momentary initial hold that's necessary while transitioning to a safer and approved form of restraint. Seclusion is what it sounds like, an involuntary confinement in a segregated room. Strip search, which is banned in most circumstances by the statute, is also what it sounds like, requiring removal of clothing for inspection of intimate parts. We discussed least restrictive and soft restraint. And we have a definition of what a secure residential program is because there are some exceptions for those programs. And this is directly from the current rules of the Department of Children and Families. It's a residential treatment center that uses locked or inoperable doors and windows to prevent a child from leaving. And then Section B, the most critical underlying piece, the department shall not use or authorize the use of prone restraints, mechanical restraints, chemical restraints which is using medication to subdue a child or strip searches of a child. It references that these are a safety measure of last resort, that least restrictive interventions must be used first, but if they're unsuccessful and the child's immediate serious risk of physical harm exists that they can conduct a physical restraint, that's not a mechanical one, it's not a chemical one, or seclusion in a way that limits trauma to the extent possible and explains to the child why it's happening and what they need to do to be released from that seclusion and restraint. Which as part F says must occur the release immediately when there is no longer that threat of danger. G adopts and enhances some of the existing rules around the level of supervision by a program based on the length of time a child's being held, the degree of required administrative consultation, and in person assessment by a clinician if it extends to longer periods of time. Under B1 we have one of the exclusions for a secure residence, which we have two currently, four bed and a three bed, that the fact that children are locked in their bedroom during sleeping hours is not considered as seclusion in those programs. The notice reflects current practice, about twenty four hours of notice of it occurring, but it adds the child's guardian ad litem and attorney as being people who receive notice of that. The next part is the same requirements around the department receiving the documentation that has to occur for each use. It adds a copy of any audio or visual recording because that's been an issue that has had obstacles, in the past. It requires under K the specific data that needs to be collected. And then Part L is what addresses our problems with out of state programs or contractors who are from out of state who take on programs here in the state. Some of you may have seen recent publicity about a particular out of state contractor. We've discussed that this morning in terms of the cost and the cost of providing that program and that oversight money going out of state. But this requires the level of review the department has to use if there's going to be a contract with any program which means looking at a five year history of safety issues or of violations of the program's own licensing status. In part two, it also requires removing a child at risk of harm as a result and searching for an alternative placement, if there's a violation of standards. M and N both deal with the other two major exceptions for secure programs when children are being detained there, and that is the permission to use mechanical restraints such as handcuffs for an initial hold in order to relocate the child to a less restrictive intervention. That was based on specific concerns the department brought us about instances where that's essential for safety. N is the section that permits a strip search of a child being detained in a secure program but sets out direct parameters. There has to have been a path search first that leads to a direct cause to believe there's possession, and then the child has to be given a clear opportunity to surrender that dangerous contraband before or even during the search. O addresses the transparency. There's a reference to the family division scorecard and several people what's a scorecard? That's the term of art that the agency of human services uses for its departments on its websites where they have indicators of what they're doing well or areas that need improvement. So this requires adding to that scorecard the rates of restraint and seclusion. And the next part is the requirement of adopting rules that are consistent with this statute, which means replacing the existing rules with an improved set of rules because some of the current ones are problematic. And that includes the parts that are not in statutes which is supervisory oversight, record keeping, reporting, oversight responsibilities of the department. Section 13, Parts one and three should look identical to you as something I just went through earlier about, contracting for care. And that's because Part two you'll see in the enactment dates in the dates of implementation, this is deferred for two years. And this was because the department was quite clear that they did not think this would be in the least bit possible immediately because it involves renegotiating contracts with out of state programs. What this requires is that when there's a contract with an out of state program, there shall be a requirement that this statute be adhered to as one of the requirements of any contract. The last section relating directly to restraint and seclusion is the report in section 14, children who are held in correctional facilities, which happens now regrettably because of the lack of appropriate locations, some of the kinds of charges that for a 16 or 17 year olds. Federal law requires full sight and sound segregation from adults but there aren't specific standards around restraint and seclusion And some of the things that were requiring a DCF would not be possible or realistic for the Department of Corrections. What we've asked is for the Department of Children and Family and of Corrections to get together and discuss what areas could be possible to reduce trauma for children being held in those settings. They were very willing to do this and I have to really give credit. Our committee doesn't deal with the Department of Corrections much. And when I ran this language by the representative from the Department of Corrections, it said it said means for for not causing physical and psychological trauma. And she pointed out, when you do restraint or seclusion, you can't eliminate trauma. It always causes trauma. It's about trying to reduce it. And I really gave credit that they would recognize that and state that it is always traumatic. Madam speaker, that finishes this section of the bill, but I am reporting on one more section, section 15 that starts on the bottom of sixteen seventy six. And this goes back to the issue of the amount of federal money that we are foregoing because of our systems. This one has to do with the Sea West computer system, but it has to do with another piece also. And that is that our current laws do

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: not

[Representative Anne B. Donahue]: give family court jurisdiction for children being assisted by the Department of Children and Families if they're over 17 years of age. But they could, perhaps with only a minor tweaking of statute. So this is asking the judiciary and the Department of Children and Families to look through what might need to be done so we could have that in place so that as soon as our computer systems are upgraded, we could access those additional supports for those children, over age 17 who are trying to get on their feet, after having been in foster care for many years. Madam Speaker, that ends the sections I'm reporting, and I yield to the member from Bridgeport.

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

[Representative Jubilee McGill]: Madam madam speaker, I am now gonna present section 16. And this section asks us to look upstream to one of the most sensitive and important times in a family's life, pregnancy. Because if we are serious about preventing trauma, we have to begin before a child is born. In recent months, serious concerns have been raised about the practice of an internal pregnancy calendar used by the Department for Children and Families to track some pregnancies. A practice that has raised significant concerns about privacy, consent, and trust. And Madam Speaker, trust between families and systems is essential. This section is about responding thoughtfully and responsibly by bringing people together to get it right. Section 16 creates the prenatal engagement and family support working group. It is comprised of 13 members including the deputy commissioner of DCS, family services division, the child youth and family advocate, the executive director of the Vermont Family Network, Vermont Legal Aid, Planned Parenthood of New England, Vermont Parent Representation Center, Recovery Partners of Vermont, Voices for Vermont's Children, the Department of Health Maternal and Child Health Division, Children of Recovering Mothers Team at Kids Safe Collaborative, the Juvenile Division of the Defender General, and two individuals with lived experience of being monitored while pregnant. And those will be one will be appointed by the speaker and one by the senate committee on committees. The working group will study the current pregnancy calendar practice and provide recommendations on alternatives and ways to better support pregnant individuals in need of services. The first of up to five meetings must occur by 08/01/2026, and the group will submit a report to the relative, relevant committees, by 11/15/2026 with its findings and recommendations for legislative action. The group will cease to exist 02/01/2027. And now I'll move into section 17, always the most exciting section, effective dates. Madam speaker, section 17 a, which is this section, and sections ten, eleven, fourteen, and fifteen relating to the transportation restraint report. The use of force policy review, the report on children in correctional facilities, and the proposal to accept extend supports for children 17, all take effect on passage. Section 17 b states that section nine on transportation of children and section 12 on restraint and seclusion take effect 01/01/2027, which allows time for rules to be developed. And then in says, section 17 c, the social security benefits provisions, which are were sections two and three of the bill, those will take effect 07/01/2027. Section 13 relating to out of state provider contracts for restraint and seclusion takes effect on 07/01/2028, and all remaining sections take effect 07/01/2026. And the bill gets a new name, an act relating to various programming and requirements within the department for children and families. And, madam speaker, before I yield the floor to the member from Northfield, I just circle us back to that through line I mentioned in the beginning, is trauma. Preventing trauma, reducing trauma, where it can't be prevented. And I think our our devotional today was was very fitting. The effects trauma can have on a person is so profound. An effect, the effect trauma can have on children, is just life altering. You know, you can do all of the things. You can get all the therapy, and a lot of trauma is cut so deep. It remains a prison, and you can learn to cope, and mask, and you can even step outside your prison once in a while, but you're still shackled. And, you know, some people, like myself, had adults who stepped in, who recognized that our laws had not cut up and were willing to take those risks, and I was able to thrive. I was able to become a state representative, and ensure no child or young adult can experience what I did, but not all children are that lucky. This population, I talked about the mental health and suicide, but they are more likely to be pregnant and parenting teens. They are more likely to struggle with substance use disorder and more likely to wind up in our justice system. And I think we all know the realities of the demographics in Vermont. We've been talking about budgets and taxes, and we cannot afford for a single one of our children not to thrive. And this bill would have changed my life. That was the thing I heard over and over is, the lives that this bill will change. So, with that, I will yield to the member from Northfield.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Bridgeport yields to the member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue]: Madam speaker, we heard from a number of witnesses for this bill. I'll run through them. Legislative counsel from the office of legislative counsel, the Executive Director of the Department of States Attorneys and Sheriffs, Sheriff from Wyndham County who's also past President of the Sheriff Vermont Sheriff's Association, the Deputy Commissioner of the Family Services Division of the Department for Children and Families. The High End System of Care Director from the Department for Children and Families Family Services Division. The Juvenile Justice Director Department for Families and Children Family Services Division. The Policy and Practice Specialist, Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division. And the Director of Communication and Legislative Affairs, Department for Children and Families. The Operations Director of Family Services Division Department of Children and Families, the Revenue Enhancement Director Department for Children and Families, the Financial Director of the Department for Children and Families. In addition, the Director of the Office of Child Youth and Family Advocate, the Deputy Advocate from the Office of Child Youth and Family Advocate, the Family Engagement Specialist from Mount Anthony Union High School, family engagement specialist from the Southwest Vermont Supervisory Union, youth voice committee member from the Vermont State Youth Council, the executive director of Elevate Youth Services, the Executive Director of Voices for Vermont's Children, the Senior Policy Advocate from Voices for Vermont Children, the Deputy Defender General and Chief Juvenile Defender from the Defender General's Office, The Director of Legislative Affairs from the Office of the State Treasurer and the Chief Superior Judge of the Vermont Judiciary. Madam Speaker I'll just finish by perhaps reinforcing a bit of the importance of this bill. I think we all recognize that the most critical investments we make are in our children. We often think of that in terms of our education system. But there is a subset of children who need our special care and intervention because their parents aren't able to provide it. Whether they're absent or unable to cope with raising a child or too enmeshed in their own survival needs. If that ends up in an adolescent homeless on the street, we need to ensure that they can at least have legal access to the resources needed for basic survival. Things that otherwise a parent or guardian would consent for. Signing a lease, getting healthcare, or even as simple as signing the consent for a class trip. And if that child ends up in the custody of the state, we need to ensure that they're being treated safely and respectfully, not being re traumatized after a life already deeply ingrained in experiences of trauma. We need to maximize the resources to help our kids thrive, whether by preventing barriers to reach up, protecting their SSI survivor or disability benefits, or working to maximize federal grant access. Madam Seeker, we set out last year to improve how we support these children who are in need of such deep help while recognizing a year where finances were tight. So our focus was on changes in policy and statutes rather than money as the primary tool and a critically needed tool. This is the product of that work to better protect the children of Vermont. Our committee vote was ten one zero and we ask for your support particularly after we later present our amendment with some corrections and clarifications. Thank you.

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

[Representative Michael Nigro]: Madam speaker, I won't wax poetic, but I want to thank the member from Northfield, the member from Bridgeport, and the Human Services Committee for a bill that would have fundamentally changed my life. Madam speaker, affecting the revenues of the state, h six fifty seven was referred to your committee on ways and means, which reports that which reports the bill favorably as amended by the committee on human services. Our report can be found on page sixteen seventy nine of today's calendar, and the fiscal note can be found on our website. Our jurisdiction over this bill can be found in sections five through eight of the bill and concerns the waiving of certain fees. Under these sections, those youth who obtain a certificate as an unaccompanied youth would be exempted from paying the following fees. Section five would waive the $10 fee for vital event certificates. Section six would waive the $29 fee for non driver identification cards. Section seven would waive the 20 or $10 issuance and renewal fees for operating licenses. And section eight would waive the $24 fee for a learner's permit. In the case of all these fees, due to the limited number of individuals eligible to receive these waivers, the impact on the revenues of the state would be de minimis. We heard from two members of legislative council, office of legislative council, the principal fiscal analyst of the joint fiscal office, and the reporter of the bill from the Committee on Human Services. We found this bill favorable as amended on a vote of ten zero one, and we ask for your support.

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

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle]: Madam speaker, house appropriations thanks house human services for this bill. In addition to what was outlined by the member from house ways and means, the bill has several additional fiscal impacts. Our report can be found on page sixteen seventy nine of today's calendar. Section one eliminates asset limits for reach up eligibility. Based on 2025 data, the joint fiscal office estimates the annual cost of removing asset limits to be approximately $140,000. Section three would prohibit DCF from using any portion of a child's social security benefits except the amount required for a child to be eligible for SSI or avoid a violation of federal limits on assets and resources. The joint fiscal office estimates the total cost of losing this income, which is used by the state to offset its cost to be approximately $700,000. The cost will not affect the f y twenty seven budget as this section would not take effect until 07/01/2027. Section 14 creates a working group on the use of seclusion and restraint of children in Vermont's correctional facilities. Fiscal impact to this section is de minimis given that it'll meet just five times and will be staffed by the Office of Child Youth and Family Advocate, most of its members who will attend the meetings, in their professional capacity. And the same is true for section 16 which creates a prenatal engagement and family support working group, Again, given the small number of meetings and the fact that most members would be working in their professional capacities and would be ineligible for a per diem would be de minimis. House appropriations favorably reports six fifty seven as amended by House Human Services on a vote of eleven zero.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now the member from Bridport, representative Miguel and others offer an amendment to the report of the committee on human services that is printed in today's calendar, member from group report.

[Representative Jubilee McGill]: Madam Speaker, one of the greatest things about this bill has been the spirit of collaboration and compromise From our committee, the administration, the advocates, service providers, ledge council, it's been wonderful to be part of. But in our efforts to get it right, some crucial things were accidentally deleted during the wordsmithing process. And while we knew what it was supposed to say, we didn't notice that the words, had been removed. The spirit of collaboration has remained as the bill wound its way through other committees and so rather than have a number of little amendments, we have created this one amendment. It adds back some crucial components that were deleted, makes some technical corrections, and serves to add clarity. You can find the amendment on page sixteen seventy nine of today's calendar and I will now walk you through. So the first instance of amendment begins with a strike all of section four, that's really for ease. We add a new legislative intent section as a and then re letter the subsequent sub sections. The intent language states, in instances in which severe family dysfunction such as abuse, neglect, child abandonment, or lack of financial support has left a child or youth homeless and and other support such as foster care are deemed inappropriate, it is the intent of the general assembly to provide an unaccompanied youth with the resources necessary to obtain services and benefits that the unaccompanied youth's peers can obtain with the consent of a parent or guardian. I think I'm just checking one thing because I think I might have not updated my notes. Okay. Well, I will correct it on third reading if I got it wrong. It then clarifies the definition of unaccompanied youth to specify that for the purposes of this section, the youth must be 16 or 17 years of age. It then tasked the department with creating a section on their website with information about this bill, the form, who is eligible, and which entities a youth can work with to potentially obtain a certification. We add a header to the newly lettered h about the interstate compact for juveniles. The ICGA is an agreement among states that creates a uniform process for handling search certain situations involving youth across state lines. It governs governs things like runaways, supervising juveniles on probation or parole when they move to another state, and coordinating responsibilities between states so there is a clear legal framework for safety, custody, and supervision. This change helps to clarify and highlight that no part

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: of this

[Representative Jubilee McGill]: bill supersedes this long standing agreement among states. We then get into the second instance of amendment in section four a, which was suggestion from your house on committee house committee on judiciary. This language clarifies that is the provider's actions as authorized within 33 VSA that have immunity. The third instance is just to clean things up and update language to use the defined term. We changed it and then forgot to update this part. And then in the fourth and final incidence of amendment, we strike the we strike the subsection completely and it creates a new one. We had asked the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs who conduct a small number of youth transports to provide reporting. This language clarifies that they are only required to report on court ordered transports, the situation where they are actually involved rather than all any and all youth transports that happen in the state. Your committee on house human services voted favorably on a nine zero two vote, and we ask for your support. And sorry, that was a situation where I presented and brought the bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from so the question is shall the report of the committee on human services be amended as offered by the member from Bridport and others? Are you ready for the question? Member from Franklin.

[Speaker 35]: May I interrogate the presenter of the amendment please?

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

[Speaker 35]: Member, as you know, had questions when you came to our committee and it seems like maybe this amendment addresses some of those. I was concerned that a youth could show up at a shelter and have someone that's certified could certify this person to be in the shelter without law enforcement or any investigation in terms of whether this person was a runaway or where they came from. So did you, did you consult with any sheriffs? Do you have testimony from them, sheriffs or law enforcement, state police?

[Representative Jubilee McGill]: Yes. We had, we worked very closely with the state's attorneys and, the Department of the State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, and they testified on the bill. I will say, we, you know, providers are already required to work with parents and coordinate with law enforcement as part of their program funding requirements, both through state funding, and federal funding that they receive. So that work has already been happening, and this bill does not replace it, Just picks up to support young people, when that due diligence has taken place, and they have no other options. I would think this bill is a last or this part of the bill is a last resort. It is not the first step that happens.

[Speaker 35]: Madam speaker, just it just makes me a little nervous that, you know, a provider, you know, we hear a lot of testimony or testimonials about, this all being working just fine and everybody's a professional. Well, we all know many professionals that have got in trouble in life very badly. So I'm just concerned that there's the process is there that will make sure that these kids that might fall through we're trying to make sure all these kids don't fall through the cracks in many, many ways. I just want to make sure that this isn't another crack that somebody could fall into that would be a problem with a family or with a child going forward in the future. So I'm I'm I'm gonna support the bill. I supported the bill in committee. I just wanna express this so that everybody working on these things understand that I like fact based evidence stuff that's thrown around here all the time. But a lot of times, we we end up with testimonials. So thank you, and, I hope this will help a little bit.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on human services be amended as offered by the member from Bridport and others? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the report of the committee on 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? Member from Chester.

[Representative Tom Charlton]: Thank you, madam speaker. Apologies for slowing this down possibly. This is a question I need to ask on behalf of one of my municipalities. Let me relay the situation, and and then I would like to interrogate. I think it would be the member from Northfield. Over a year ago, one of our departments was doing a courtesy transport for DCF. The juvenile was in the back of the cruiser.

[Representative Doug Bishop]: Not appearing to be a threat

[Representative Tom Charlton]: to themselves or anybody else, but they did manage to do thousands and thousands of dollars worth of damage by pulling the headliner out of the car and the wires that were in the top of the cruiser and so on and so forth. The question that was initially put to me was, who on earth is supposed to pay for this? The insurance company is not wild about it. Most small departments don't have a budget line for upholstery, and they were following statutory guidelines by not using restraint. Let me be clear that I'm in favor of the bill. I am totally in favor of the bill. What is unclear is whether or not that behavior would be construed by a court as an indication that the child was a threat to themselves. And without clarity, I think law enforcement is hesitant to do what they need to to protect the public property, at least do something minimal, to do that. So if I may, pose the question to a member from Northfield.

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

[Representative Anne B. Donahue]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The approach that says or the policies and so forth that say restraint and seclusion are only permitted to prevent immediate risk of harm to the child or others is a long, long established standard. It's not something that we came up with for this bill. This is across many different environments from hospitals, you know, inpatient psychiatry, residential homes, transportation. So the, you know, the concept of the use of restraint or seclusion based only on risk to property, is not considered an acceptable use for that degree of potential trauma. However, I think as the member himself raised, that doesn't mean that a high level of physical actions would not be taken as an indicator of, for example, ripping apart materials that could be used to harm oneself, would not be an indicator of an immediate risk of harm to self or others. I think that that's not something that we went into in the bill or in testimony in any kind of depth, but I think there is a a long standard in history in terms of policy interpretations and legal interpretations, for example, if it if it went to court. In terms of the financial risk, it is true that there is not there's not a remedy for that kind of damage in this bill, and I'm not familiar at all with, what kind of remedies are available when there's that kind of damage, but it I I think that's a bit of a of a separate issue in terms of the finances.

[Representative Tom Charlton]: Okay. I thank the member. I appreciate that. I I would like to suggest, that the study might offer some clarity for law enforcement officers that are on the scene in the situation. Thank you. So

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: 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. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And third reading is ordered. Members, we will be taking up House Bill nine thirty eight yet but just so you have an update, we will, take up House Bill nine thirty eight and then we will have a thirty minute break for lunch. So committee chairs if you have amendments, a heads up of that timing. So now we'll turn to house bill nine thirty eight which is an act relating to establishing the Vermont homelessness response continuum. The bill was introduced by the committee on human services. The member from Rutland City, representative McGuire will speak for the committee. And then carrying an appropriation, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the bill ought to pass. The member from Burlington, representative Bluemle, will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Reading Clerk (name not specified)]: Age nine thirty eight, an act relating to establishing the Vermont homelessness response continuum.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Rutland City.

[Representative Eric Maguire]: Madam speaker, h nine thirty eight, an act relating to establishing the Vermont homeless response continuum represents a careful and thoughtful effort to bring greater clarity, structure, and consistency to Vermont's emergency housing system. Over time, our response to homelessness has grown in ways that were never intended, and communities across the state have expressed the need for a more coordinated and predictable approach. H nine thirty eight provides a clear framework that strengthens early intervention, supports the work of local partners, and ensures emergency housing is delivered in a safe, organized, accountable, and compassionate manner. At its core, the bill is about improving how we respond when Vermonters experience a housing crisis. It respects the need for timely assistance while also creating the conditions for longer term stability. It reflects the thoughtful input of providers, municipalities, the agency of human services, the administration, and most importantly, community members. It aims to support both the individuals seeking health help, and the communities working to assist them. This is a practical, balanced, and forward looking step toward a more effective system that can better meet the needs of Vermont today and in years ahead. The initial sections of the bill outlines Vermont's current homeless landscape and the reasons for updating the state's approach. As documented in Vermont homeless management information system, approximately 4,022 Vermonters were experiencing homelessness as of December 2025, including 863 children. And statewide assessments indicate a need for an estimated thirty two ninety five additional housing units to address homelessness effectively. These findings helped establish a context for considering new strategies and improvements to the current system. H nine thirty eight expresses its its in intent to work towards conditions in which homelessness is rare, brief, and nonoccurring, and to reduce reliance on hotel placements as a primary emergency shelter placement. The purpose section emphasizes creating a more coordinated, transparent, and supportive framework that can assist households in stabilizing their housing situations. Encourage efficient use of public resources and provide an organized pathway to long term housing options. The bill establishes the Vermont homeless response continuum within the office of economic opportunity. This structure is intended to bring together emergency housing, shelter programs, supportive services, and coordinated entry processes under a more unified administrative approach. By placing these responsibilities within a single office, the state aims to strengthen consistency and improve communication across regions. The continuum is designed to be flexible and centered on housing outcomes and with emphasis on early intervention and equitable access to available resources. The structural shift acknowledges feedback over recent years from Vermont's emergency housing system, which has evolved exponentially, and it sometimes has created regional differences or operational challenges. This bill seeks to provide clear expectations and shared standards across the state. A substantial portion of this bill is dedicated to definite defining key terms that will guide implementation of the continuum. These definitions clarify what is meant by terms such as homelessness, diversion, low barrier shelter, high structured shelter, supportive services, rapid rehousing, and alternative housing models. Establishing these definitions and statutes intended to promote clarity, reduce uncertainty for applicants and providers, and support consistent decision making across regions. Past experience has shown that variations in interpretation can lead to uneven outcomes or inconsistency in service delivery. By setting clear definitions at the outset, the bill supports shared understanding among all partners, which will be especially important during rule making and future fair hearing processes. These definitions also help ensure that program expectations are understandable and predictable for households seeking assistance. The bill organizes the continuum into a model consisting of five levels of service that range from early prevention efforts to more intensive forms of emergency shelter. This structure is intended to allow households to access the type of support that best matches their situation. The bill also requires that each level have a separate budget category, which provides greater transparency for policymakers and helps inform future decisions about resources needed. By clearly defining the levels of service, the state can better track how households move through the system, evaluate how well each level is functioning, and identify where additional capacity may be beneficial. The model reflects an effort to balance immediate needs with long term housing goals and assure that responses are proportional to household circumstances. Level one serves as a primary entry point for most households households. It consists of a brief standardized assessment to identify whether safe alternative housing options exist. It allows for flexible short term assistance that may help a household avoid homelessness altogether. Many communities nationally have found them that modest early interventions can help households resolve a housing crisis before it escalates. This bill incorporates this approach in a way that aims to reduce pressure on the other levels while maintaining space for households with no alternatives and an improved overall system flow. This level is also designed to accommodate households with disability by assuring that assessments and supports can be tailored to individualized needs. Level two a, two b, which is more highly structured and low barrier shelters. The bills distinguishes between highly structured shelters and low barrier shelters to reflect the different needs of Vermont households. Highly structured shelters offer offer programming that includes case management, employment, housing navigation, and other supports that may assist households working towards longer term stability. Low barrier shelters provide a more flexible environment with fewer entry point, entry requirements, serving individuals who may need additional time or support before engaging in a more structured environment. This two level of shelter approach is intended to acknowledge the diverse needs within the homeless population while maintaining safety and accessibility. Both types of shelters are required to meet applicable fire and safety standards, and both operate under multi year agreements that aim to support stability for providers and consistency for households. Level three reflects the recognition that some households may need shelter setting with more specialized support support, including services related to health conditions, mental health needs, or substance use. Vermont has at times struggled to identify to identify appropriate placements for individuals with these more complex needs, leading to challenges for both households and service providers. This section of the bill creates a mechanism for developing specialized shelter capacity that is equipped to support these individuals safely and effectively. Specialized shelters would be utilized when the needs of a household cannot reasonably be met within levels one or two, ensuring that placements remain appropriate and responsive to individual circumstances. Level four incorporates permanent supportive housing into the continuum as a recognized component of Vermont's response system. This model combines long term rental assistance with voluntary supportive services often funded in part through Medicaid. Permanent supportive housing is widely used across the the country for households experience chronic homelessness or those who need ongoing support to maintain housing. The bill clarifies that supportive housing is voluntary and can be provided for as long as necessary based on a household's plan. This section emphasizes stability and long term outcomes, recognizing that for some Vermonters, consistent supportive services are a key factor in remaining successfully housed. The bill allows for hotels and motels to continue serving as part of the Vermont's emergency housing system, but it places clearer limits and expectations around their use. This approach acknowledges that Vermont's current shelter capacity is insufficient to meet demands, particularly in the short term, while also recognizing concerns about cost, predictability, and the limitations of hotel settings. This bill includes provisions such as statewide room caps, negotiated rate, case management requirements, and compliance with safety standards. These requirements are intended to make hotel use more structured and predictable while the state works towards expanding shelter capacity and other housing options. This section aims to balance the practical need for hotel rooms with with efforts to create a more sustainable long term system. Section twenty two zero nine describes the responsibilities and opportunities for municipalities during cold weather conditions and establishes parameters for emergency cold weather shelters. Municipal supports provide flexibility for communities experience higher levels of unsheltered homelessness, allowing them to respond quickly during severe weather events without imposing full program requirements such as coordinated entry assessments. Emergency cold weather shelters remain available when temperatures are dangerously low and are designed to offer a temporary low barrier option that prioritizes safety. This section also clarifies that other forms of housing operated by the agency of human services including recovery residents, transitional housing for individuals leaving correctional custody, and residential supports for Vermonters with disabilities remain separate from the continuum and are not replaced by it. Madam speaker, I now yield to my member from Bridgeport.

[Representative Lori Houghton]: The member from Rutland City yields to the member from Bridgeport.

[Representative Jubilee McGill]: Madam speaker, thank you. I will continue the committee's report beginning with section twenty two ten, household responsibilities. As my colleague shared, this bill builds a more coordinated system of care for Vermonters experiencing homelessness. What I will walk through now is how that system works in practice, how people enter it, how support is prioritized, how long people can stay, and what protections are in place if something goes wrong. On peep on paper, these sections can read like a list of rules for people who are already in crisis, but that is not how the committee approached this work. We saw these provisions as protections, protections for people navigating a system that is too long, been confusing, inconsistent, or out of reach when it matters most. This section is about making sure that when someone reaches out for help, they are not left navigating a system that is unclear or inconsistent. Instead, it is about creating a structure that people can rely on on moments of crisis or instability so that support feels predictable, fair, and grounded in dignity. Madam speaker, the title of this section, household responsibilities, is one I wanna reframe before I read it. Because when we talk about what is expected of someone who is homeless, we are often really talking about what hoops we require them to jump through before we agree to help. And the committee was very conscious of that history. People experiencing homelessness are not homeless because they lack responsibility. They are homeless because they lack housing. They are people who have lost lost jobs, fled violence, aged out of foster care, survived addiction, or simply been priced out of a market that has left many working Vermonters behind. They do not need to earn their way to shelter. They need shelter, and then with stability underneath them, the real work of rebuilding becomes possible. Subsection A sets out the four conditions for qualification within the funds appropriated. A household qualifies if it is physically present and intends to reside in Vermont as evidenced by active participation in a housing, employment or other AHS recognized plan. Agrees to a coordinated entry assessment that prioritizes them for permanent housing unless explicitly exempts. Engages with lead case management entity to develop a housing plan and participate employment, treatment, or other appropriate activities unless exempt by this chapter of federal federal law. And fourth, it abides by pro or they abide by program rules and refrain from misconduct. Subsection b addresses fraud. The office of economic opportunity or community partner must provide written notice of fraud penalties at the time of application. Critically, a household cannot be penalized for a good faith immaterial error that is corrected upon notice within a reasonable period. Cases of suspected fraud may be referred to the attorney general or a state's attorney. Subsection c allows termination for household that repeatedly refuses suitable placements, but only following documented suitability assessments and reasonable accommodations. Subsection d allows immediate termination for safety, specifically for criminal activity or misconduct not related to a disability or to victimization from abuse, sexual assault, or stalking. Subsection e defines misconduct as documented behaviors that materially endanger the safety of others, involve intentional destruction of property, or constitute a legal activity. Then we move into section twenty two eleven, which is about prioritization. Madam Speaker, the Vermont Homelessness Management Information System tells us there are a little over 4,000 individuals experiencing homelessness in Vermont right now. Eight hundred and sixty three of whom are children 18. In any system with limited resources, sometimes we have to make hard choices about who gets served first. This section makes those choices explicit and transparent. Subsection a directs the office and community partners to prioritize services eligible households that include a member who is either 65 years of age or older, has a disability, is a minor child, is pregnant, is experiencing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or other dangerous or life threatening conditions. Or six is under court ordered or constructive eviction due to circumstances beyond the household's control. Subsection B addresses verification of disability and lists acceptable sources of verification. An initial self attestation with a follow-up verification window is allowed and it matters enormously for households in crisis who cannot immediately produce paperwork. Disability status must be verified at initial application and redetermined annually except for lifelong disabilities, such as intellectual or developmental disabilities, which are never subject to redetermination. Subsection C requires full compliance with the American with Disabilities Act and section five zero four of the Rehabilitation Act, including reasonable modifications, effective communication, and accessible placements. Program rules and case management requirements shall be modified as necessary, including the use of plain language so that we all know what we're talking about. And this also really helps to avoid discrimination. Subsection 22.12 goes over time limits for program participation. Madam Speaker, one of the most consequential decisions in this bill is the question of time limits. Vermont's experience with the general assistance motel program where progress towards permanent housing has remained limited is exactly what this continuum is designed to correct. But the committee was equally clear that time limits cannot become a mechanism for pushing people back onto the streets. So this section builds structure and flexibility. Subsection a establishes time limits by level of care. Level one, prevention and diversion, which is any temporary housing that is not in the form of temporary rental assistance can't exceed thirty days per rolling twelve month period. Level two, shelters. We're gonna have the office establish a maximum length of stay in rural or in shelter standards. And we're gonna have them collaborate with the service providers, with the people operating shelters to come up with an agreeable amount for everyone. Level three, specialized shelters. DCF and relevant AHS departments will establish maximum links in rule, and then we get to level four permanent supportive housing, and that can continue as long as it remains in the household's plan, and indicates it's necessary. This is designed to be long term for those who need it. Level five, hotels and motels, between April 1 and November, the cap is seventy days per rolling twelve month period. And then between December 1 and March 31, that's that winter weather period, households may receive continual cold weather services in hotels and motels. And crucially, winter usage does not count toward that seventy day summer, spring, fall season cap. Subsection B allows the department to grant time limit extensions to any of these tiers for households actively awaiting a placement in housing, treatment, or other services, medical necessity, lack of reasonable alternative accessible placements for a household member with a disability, and imminent risk to the health or safety of household members. These are real circumstances and the bill acknowledges them. We don't wanna push people back out into the street once they've been stabilized. Section twenty two thirteen, case management services. This section requires that each eligible household be assigned a lead case manager except where specifically exempted for certain services like emergency weather shelters. The case manager may come from a any AHS department or a community partner. Case management must be informed by the acuity level of the household and must connect households to public assistance, health care, employment, permanent housing, and other services. A household may request a specific case manager or a change in case manager as we know that trust between a household and a case manager is crucial. Section twenty two fourteen requires office and community partners to provide advice and consultation to the Department of Housing and Community Development and its completion of a statewide needs assessment that identifies gaps in services for households experiencing homelessness and includes recommendations to ensure equitable services throughout the state. This is how we make sure the continuum responds to regional realities that what works in Chittenden County gets measured against what is needed in the Northeast Kingdom or in Rutland. Twenty two fifteen, notices, appeals and rights to a fair hearing. This may be the most provision, most important due process provision in the bill. We heard in committee from advocates who described households losing housing with no meaningful explanation. No opportunity to contest the decision and no time to find alternatives. This section changes that. Subsection A just one second, I'm going to take a

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: sip of water.

[Representative Jubilee McGill]: Lot of talking this morning. Okay. Subsection a, the officer or community partner must provide written notice to any cap, applicant or household whose participation is denied, reduced, suspended, or terminated. And that notice must include the specific factual and legal basis for the decision. It must have the effective dates of the decision and it must be sent in the household's preferred method of communication. It must include a statement to the right to a fair hearing and clear instructions and plain language on the process and deadlines for filing an appeal. In subsection b, any applicant or recipient may file for a fair hearing with the Human Services Board when an application is denied. Benefits are terminated or reduced or the household believes benefits have not been provided in accordance with the rules. Request for fair hearing must be filed within sixty days of the written notice. And if a household files a request within fourteen days of receiving notice, services must continue without interruption until the board issues a decision, unless the household voluntarily waives those services or continued services potentially pose a safety risk to others. This aid pending appeal provision is a significant protection for people experiencing homelessness. Hearings must meet due process standards, the right to present evidence, cross examine witnesses, and be represented by counsel or an authorized representative. And the board must issue a written decisions with findings of facts, conclusions of law, and the basis for its decision as well as the process for appealing to the Vermont Supreme Court. Subsection g, I think, is particularly innovative. If the Human Services Board issues 20 substantially identical decisions brought by program applicants or recipients, the department and community partners must adopt the board's interpretation as program policy and revise rules accordingly. This is a built in mechanism to prevent the repeated litigation of the same issue against vulnerable households, which ensures efficient use of state resources. Rule making. Section twenty two sixteen requires DCF to adopt rules under three VSA chapter 25 to implement the continuum. At minimum, the rules must address requirements for community providers, standards for highly structured low barrier and specialized shelters, documentation requirements for eligibility, including disability, required elements for supportive services and case management, creation of a brief standardized initial assessment form that can be completed by hand, electronically or by phone, A process for timely written approval or denial notifications. A process for advanced notice of termination, appeal procedures, time limits and extension procedures. Extensions for the office's oversight and quality monitoring and any other subjects as needed. Section twenty two seventeen establishes robust public accountability for the continuum. Annually, as part of DCF's budget presentation, the department must report on households served at each, level of the continuum, average length of participation and transition rates to permanent housing, households diverted through prevention services, hotel and motel utilization including average nightly uses, usage, medium length of stay, and year over year change, housing stability outcomes including rates of return to homelessness at six and twelve months, regional capacity and equity and access, total expenditures by level and funding source, and operational barriers along with recommendations for action. The department must also set annual goals for increased housing capacity, for supportive, for permanent supportive housing, permanent affordable housing, as well as any necessary shelter beds, and they must report on their progress towards those goals. And finally, on or before the last day of each month, the office must post a monthly report on its website similar to their current monthly housing report including monthly expenditures on the program by level. Vermonters will be able to see in real time how their money is being spent. Section five, directs DCF's Office of Economic Opportunity in collaboration with the Chittenden County Homeless Alliance, the balance of state continuum of care, and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development to establish a single unified continuum of care on or before 10/01/2028. The office must submit a progress report to the legislature by 01/15/2028. Section six is about grant requirements. And this section won't be effective until 10/01/2028. This adds 33 VSA subsection twenty two eighteen requiring that any grant or agreement executed by AHS or its departments require community partners to participate in the local housing coalition or other groups established to assist homeless households. Use the coordinated entry assessment for households that are homeless or at risk. Use the appropriate planning process for households transitioning to a permanent housing, including households with intellectual or developmental disabilities, older Vermonters, and individuals exiting correctional facilities or hospitals, and measure performance outcomes including diversion success, time to housing, and housing retention. This section takes effect on 10/01/2028 to allow time for the continuum to be operationalized. Section seven acknowledges reality. DCF and community partners do not have the full capacity to implement this continuum on 07/01/2026. Section seven directs the department to implement the program to the fullest extent of its ability in fiscal year twenty seven while developing the capacity for full implementation next year in fiscal year twenty twenty eight. This is a free a phased approach. The vision is clear and the law is clear, but we are building the infrastructure alongside the program. Section eight requires the commissioner for children and families to adopt emergency rules by 07/01/2026 to govern the continuum while permanent rules are being developed. Those emergency rules must, at minimum, address all the, topics listed earlier in twenty two sixteen, and permanent rules must be adopted on or before 10/01/2027, unless that gets extended, that deadline by the legislative committee on administrative rules. Section nine requires the, office to present a progress report to the House Committee on Human Services and the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare on or before 02/15/2027, and that present presentation must include an initial draft of the department's permanent rules as well as any recommendations for legislative action that has come up. This allows the legislature an early opportunity to course correct if things aren't on track. Section 10 amends 33 VSA chapter six to update the title of subsection six zero two and clarify that the department shall elect and enter into an agreement with a statewide organization to provide supportive services and shelter to households experiencing or having experienced domestic or sexual violence. If the statewide organization cannot fulfill its responsibilities, DCF must work with another entity to ensure there is never a gap in those really important services. Ensure that these services remain protected and distinct within the new continuum. Households served under this section are also explicitly excluded from the hotel and motel room room caps in subsection twenty two zero eight. Section 11 establishes the Vermont Rental Assistance Bridge Program within the Vermont State Housing Authority. It is designed to link households that need rental assistance to permanent housing when they do not have access to HUD rental assistance programs. The program is available to eligible clients served by any AHS department. Assistance is available for not more than twenty four months, and does not cover the full amount of a household's rent. Payments go directly from VSHA to the landlord, not to the household, and priority is given to current recipients of the home program who have not yet reached twenty four months of rental assistance. AHS departments and VSHA must joint jointly work to incorporate any existing agency rental assistance into this program and establish eligibility criteria. It is the intent of the general assembly that these funds be appropriated for this program through fiscal year 2030, at which point future people in these seats may want to take a look and, make some adjustments. Section 12 directs DCF in collaboration with AHS and relevant community partners to establish a payment rate structure, including periodic rate reviews for all shelter services required by this act. The structure will include a base rate and potential supplemental payment where necessary. And, DCF must report to the legislature on the implementation of the payment rate structure and its proposed timeline by 04/01/2027. Section 13 sets the hotel and motel motel payment cap for fiscal year 2027, which remains from the the cap that we have this year of $80 per day for room or not more than the hotel's lowest advertised room rate, whichever is lower. Section 14 provides for a fiscal year twenty twenty seven expenditure of $82,634,153 for services, implementation of the continuum, shelter development and operation, rental assistance, and supportive services, including case management. Any funds unspent at the end of fiscal year twenty twenty seven carry forward for the same purpose. Any unspent general assistance, emergency housing, or housing opportunity grant pro program funds that are left over at the end of this fiscal year also carry forward into the continuum into in fiscal year twenty twenty seven. Section 15 just removes the general assistance program annual reports. This report used to track the voucher usage, demographics, length of stay, and shelter and motel usage rates under the old framework and is now superseded by a far more comprehensive and timely reporting requirements that were established previously in this bill. So the old bill just became redundant. Section 16, effective dates. We're almost there. Subsection a, which is this section, and section eight, the interim emergency rulemaking, those take effect right away on passage. The emergency rules must be in place by 07/01/2026, so, we want that rulemaking authority to be immediate. Subsection b, which is section six on grant requirements, that, as I said previously, takes effect on 10/01/2028, and then subsection c, which is all the remaining sections, will take effect on 07/01/2026. And in the development of this bill, your House Human Services Committee heard from a lot of sponsors. We heard from the sponsors, witnesses. We heard from the bill sponsor of h five ninety four, deputy chief counsel, office of legislative counsel, legislative counsel, office of legislative counsel, Deputy Secretary at the Agency of Human Services, Public Health Policy Director at the Agency of Human Services, Director of Complex Care and Field Services at the Agency of Human Services, Interim Commissioner, now permanent commissioner of the Department for Children and Families, Director of Office of Economic Opportunity at the Department for Children and Families, commissioner of the Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living, deputy commissioner, Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living, commissioner of the Department of Mental Health, deputy commissioner at the Department of Mental Health, director of mental health services at the Department of Mental Health, deputy commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections, chief of of operations, Department of Corrections, housing program administrator, department of corrections, commissioner at the department of health, principal assistance at the department of health, director of substance use disorders at the department of health, Director of Emergency Management at the Agency of Transportation, the executive director of End Homelessness Vermont, the director at the Housing and Homeless Alliance of Vermont, public engagement director at the Early Childhood Advocacy Alliance, poly policy advocate at ACLU of Vermont, poverty law fellow from Vermont Legal Aid, the executive director of the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity, director of Franklin Grand Isle Community Action, Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity, the executive director of Northeast Kingdom Community Action, lobbyists from Action Circles, Vermont Community Action Partnership, executive director helping from helping overcome poverty's effects, co chair from Chittenden County Homeless Alliance, executive director, Neighborhood Connections, director of housing program administration, Vermont State Housing Authority, executive director, Vermont State Housing Authority, director of policy and special projects, Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, executive director, Vermont Interfaith action, executive director, Good Samaritan Haven, executive director from the committee on temporary shelter, the chief executive officer of Cathedral Square, the executive director of operational development and shelter services from the Bennington County Coalition for the Homeless, the executive director of homeless prevention center, the director of the Vermont Coalition of Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs, mayor of Rutland City, town manager of Shelburne, chief of staff at the Burlington mayor's office, an emergency department nurse at Porter Medical Center, a patient access navigator at the University of Vermont Medical Center, a medical director, in emergency services at the University of Vermont Medical Center, and director of the Brown L. Library. So we heard from a lot of people. Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, over 4,000 of our neighbors will be without a home tonight. 863 of them are children. The general assistance motel program was never designed to be a long term solution. It became one by default because we had nothing else. This build builds the something else. It is not perfect, but it is the beginning. The vote out of your of committee was nine one one, and your committee on house human services respectfully request your support.

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

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle]: Madam speaker, we thank the committee for h 09:38. The total appropriation in both the governor's recommended budget and in this bill are the same. 82,600,000.0, 56.7 in base general funds, 21,200,000.0 in one time general funds, 1,100,000.0 in federal funding, and $3.06 3,600,000.0 in global commitment. House appropriations reviewed the bill and has carried the full amount of its appropriations in the f y twenty seven budget. It favorably reports the bill out of committee on a vote of ten one zero and recommend that the bill ought to pass.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now the member from Waterbury, representative Wood and others offer an amendment to the bill that the first assistant clerk emailed to members at 11:27 today. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Waterbury.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Thank you, madam speaker. Several members of the house human services committee are presenting this amendment. Frankly, when we met our crossover deadline, we still had this section to provide specific details on. So this is section 14, which identifies the expenditures for this program. And so in wanting to disclose fully what the substantial amount of money, dollars 82,600,000.0 will be going to funding, we wanted to provide that detail in this amendment. So, as you can read in the amendment, sent by the first assistant clerk at 11:27, we are, recommending that $39,200,000 that will be utilized in the housing opportunity grant program will be used to fund mostly shelter operations. 4,400,000.0 will be for shelter development. Item number $323,870,000.00 will be for use in hotels and motels for emergency housing. 2,400,000.0 will be for case management services and community providers. 4,200,000.0 will be for permanent supportive housing and family supportive housing. Dollars 3,000,000 will be for the rental assistance program established in this bill. Dollars 500,000 is for specific grants to municipalities and 1,500,000.0 for emergency cold weather shelters and then 314,000 for, other expenses. And the final item is $3,160,000 for staffing grants and contracts to operate this program both in the community and at the state level. Madam Speaker, this has been a long road to get to this point, a road that we didn't know if we would make, There has been a lot of ups and downs in this process, not only over the past six years, but this year as well. The importance of this bill cannot be understated to the citizens of Vermont, to the people who live every day in homelessness in Vermont, as well as the communities trying to support them and the service providers out there doing their best to also support them. And because of that Madam Chair, and I know I'm standing between lunch and and this bill, but we request that when the role is taken that it be done.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member, I will come back to you to make that motion.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: After that. Okay. See? Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now for the committee vote on the amendment, member from Rutland City Or the member from Waterbury. Member from Rutland City.

[Representative Eric Maguire]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm actually gonna yield on over to, the member from Waterbury because I do not remember what the vote was. The

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: member from Rutland City yields to the member from Waterbury.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Oh, sorry, madam speaker. Yes. On a vote of nine two zero, our committee recommends this amendment be voted favorably.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Alright. So the question is we have two questions, member. The first is on the amendment and then the second is shall the bill be read a third time? So the first question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Waterbury and others? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time member from Waterbury? I won't repeat what I just said, Matt.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: It's been

[Representative Jubilee McGill]: a long week.

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Madam speaker, I won't repeat what I just said about the importance of this bill to Vermont, but I ask when the vote is taken, it'd be taken by roll.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Waterbury request that when the vote is taken, it be taken by roll. Is member sustained? The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member from Rutland City.

[Representative Eric Maguire]: Madam Speaker, I wanna reflect on the truly collaborative work that brought us to this moment. This bill was not shaped by one person, one party, or one viewpoint. It grew for many hours of thoughtful discussions, open minded problem solving, and at times, difficult but deeply constructive conversations. Members came forward with sincere concerns, lived experiences from their communities, and a general desire to strengthen the system that has been under strain for far too long. Through it all, the committee worked with professionalism and heart, listening carefully to testimony, weighing optional realities, and striving to build something that could earn broad trust and support. What stands before us today is a product of that shared effort. It offers a clearer, more consistent framework for emergency housing. One that brings structure to early interventions, strengthens local partnership, and improves accountability for public resources, all while maintaining our commitment to ensure Vermonters in crisis have safe and dignified options. It reflects compassion and practicality working together, acknowledging that our responsibility is both to individuals seeking help and the communities working working to support them. I believe this bill demonstrates what is possible when we approach a challenging issue with respect for one another and a shared commitment to good governance. It reflects the best of this body's ability to work collaboratively even when perspectives differ and to focus on solutions that serve the common good. In appreciation for the thoughtful and cooperative work that brought it forward, I respectfully ask for the body support and for your vote in favor in passage of this bill. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Arsenault. One minute.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats. Will the house please come to order? I would like to remind members that we are in the middle of a roll call vote. Members and guests are prohibited from using computers, phones or any type of an electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes and conversation during 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 read a third time? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Austin of Colchester. Bailey of High Park. Bartholomew of Heartland. Yes. Bartley of Fairfax. Yes. Rebecca Vanusky. Yes. Byrong of Regents. Yes. Bishop of Colchester. Black of Essex. Yes. Bloomley of Burlington.

[Assistant/Reading Clerk (name not specified)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Bosch of Clarendon. Boonton of Cambridge. Brady Williston. Yes. Brennan of Georgia. Yes. Brigham of Saint Albans Town. Ronald Richmond. Yes. Burditt at West Bretlin. Burkhardt of South Burlington.

[Representative Lori Houghton]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Burrows West Windsor. Yes. Burditt Cabot. Yes. Campbell Saint Johnsbury.

[Representative Brian Cina]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Canfield of Fairhaven. Yes. Carris Duncan of Whitingham. Casey Montpelier.

[Former Representative Chip Troiano]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Casey Hubbardton. Tiffany East Montpelier. Charlton of Chester.

[Former Representative Chip Troiano]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Christie of Hartford? Gina of Burlington? Yes. Coffin of Cavendish?

[Former Representative Chip Troiano]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Cole of Hartford?

[Representative Michael Morgan]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Conlon of Cornwall?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Cooper Panel?

[Reading Clerk (name not specified)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Corcoran of Bennington?

[Representative Eric Maguire]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Critchlow of Colchester?

[Representative Jubilee McGill]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Demar of Unisburg? Yes. Dickinson of Saint Helmandstown? Yes. Dobervich at Williamstown? Yes. Dodge of Essex? Yes. Dolan of Essex Junction? Yes. Dolgin of St. Johnsbury? Yes. Donahue Northfield? Yes. Duke of Burlington?

[Representative Michael Nigro]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Droffy of Shaftsbury? Yes. Eastes Of Guilford? And missus Springfield?

[Representative Patricia McCoy]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Feltus of Linden?

[Representative Anne B. Donahue]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Galfetti, Barrytown? Yes. Garifano of Essex? Yes. Gorman of Rockingham? Good now, Brattleboro? Yes. Ghostland on Northfield? Yes. Granting a Jericho? Yes. Greer Bennington? Yes. Greg Burkhardt Fairfield? Hangover, Briggsier? Yes. Harper of Glover? Yes. Harvey of Castleton?

[Representative Michael Nigro]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Hedrick of Burlington?

[Representative Eric Maguire]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Higley of Lowell? Yes. Holcomb and Norwich? Yes. Cooper of Randolph?

[Former Representative Chip Troiano]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Poten of Essex Junction?

[Speaker 35]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Howard of Rutland City? Yes. Holland of Rutland Town? Yes. Point Of Hartford? Yes. Hunter Manchester?

[Former Representative Chip Troiano]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: James of Manchester?

[Assistant/Reading Clerk (name not specified)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Kasinski Burke? Yes. Keyser of Rutland City? Kimball Woodstock? Yes. Kleppner Burlington?

[Representative Bram Kleppner]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Kornheiser of Brattleboro? Yes. Creswell, South Burlington? Yes. Labour Morgan?

[Reading Clerk (name not specified)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Lallie Schauburn? Yes. Malone of South Burlington? Lamont of Morristown. Larussia Franklin. No. Lipsky of Stowe.

[Former Representative Chip Troiano]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Logan of Burlington.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Long and Uffin.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Leaders of Lincoln. Yes. Luno of Saint Albans City. Maguire of Rutland City. Yes. Malay Pittsburgh. Yes. Mark out of Coventry. Yes. Aslan of Thetford. Yes. McKenna Mumpurier. Yes. McCoy Pultney. Yes. McWanna Berry Town. McGillibrary Port. Yes. Nicholas of Milton. Mollie of Callis. Yes. Meniere of South Burlington.

[Representative Tom Charlton]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Morgan Ela Milton.

[Representative Brian Cina]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Morgan Emma Milton. Yes. Morris Springfield. Morrissey Bennington. Mora of Weston? Yes. Roeke and

[Representative Bram Kleppner]: Putney? Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Nelson of Derby? Yes. Nielsen of Brandon? No. Nigro of Bennington?

[Representative Bram Kleppner]: Yes, sir.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Martha Fairsburg? Mollie S. Bokhardt. Yes. Nugent of South Burlington. Yes. O'Brien of Tunbridge. Yes. Oddie Burlington. Oliver of Sheldon. Yes. Olson of Starksboro. Page of Newport City? Yes. Parsons in Newbury? Yes. Pez of Colchester? Yes. Pinson of Dorset? Yes. Hodge of Heinzberg?

[Representative Brian Cina]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Powers of Waterford? Yes. Greasely Bradford? Yes. Richard of Pollock? Quinby of Linden? Yes. Richardson of Burlington? Yes. Sec with Randolph? Yes. Shy Middlebury? Burlington.

[Assistant/Reading Clerk (name not specified)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Sweeney of Shelburne. Yes. Yes. Taylor Milton. Yes. Taylor of London. Thomas Tomlinson. Yes. Torrey Moore Town. Yes. Walker Swanton. Yes. Wads of Zaccha Berry City.

[Representative Edward "Teddy" Waszazak]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Waters Evans of Charlotte. Yes. Wells Of Brownington.

[Representative Bram Kleppner]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: White Of Wakesfield. Yes. Water Bethel. No. Winter Of Ludlow. What a Waterbury?

[Representative Theresa Wood]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, Clerk of the House]: Yacovonia Morristown? Yes. Bailey of High Park. Carris Duncan of Whitingham. Casey of Hubbardton. Chapin at East Montpelier, Christie of Hartford, Greg Burrow Fairfield, Lamont of Morristown, Nicholas of Milton, Bridget Burditt. Shy Middlebury. What about home? And winter old Ludlow.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: For purpose of explanation, member from Milton. Member, you don't need to ask for permission. You already requested it.

[Representative Michael Morgan]: Okay. Thanks. I'm not done writing, but I'll do my best. I am concerned about the $82,000,000 cost related to h nine thirty eight. I am aware the governor has approved this amount. However, there are some pieces in the bill that could use a little bit of tweaking. So when it comes back from senate, I could possibly change my mind.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 133. Those voting four, the ayes have it and third reading is ordered. Members at this time we're going to recess for lunch. Please, be in touch with your chair. I know there's several committees that are going to be meeting to hear amendments. The house will stand in recess