Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats. We are gaveling back in after a recess and we are starting with our action calendar. With that, we will start with House Bill nine fifty three which is an act relating to approval of an amendment to the charter of the town of Patton. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk]: Page nine fifty three. An act relating to approval of an amendment to the charter of the town of Panton.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Now we'll take up senate bill three twenty five which is an act relating to regional planning and act two fifty tier jurisdiction. Prior to third reading, the member from Lowell, representative Higley offers an amendment that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Lowell.

[Representative Mark Higley (Lowell)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, you can find my amendment on page 20 four-seventy five of today's calendar. H 70 was introduced last year in regards to act 59, which is trying to secure 30% of our land conserved by February thirty and fifty percent by 2050. Madam Speaker, last year, through the rural caucus as well as the Vermont Farm Bureau, Vermont Forest Products Association, professional loggers. In discussion with them, they considered the opportunity for H70 to be a good one in the sense of including roughly 2,500,000 acres of current use land, which is land that is in production for forestry and agriculture in a total benefit way to Vermont. This is in regards to currently, there's about 5,900,000 acres of actual forest land. And from what the study has included so far under act 59 in regards to conserved land, there's roughly 1,600,000 acres currently conserved or right around 27%. So, again, by including the, 2.5 roughly acres of current use, this would bring us to our 50 by 50 goal write off. I know in discussions, it's been talked about, well, if we do that, is there gonna be any more opportunity for folks to conserve land, whether it's land trusts or whatever? This will not be the case at all. And again, I think it's a concern for me when talking with the chair of the committee this year for the first time that there's a philosophical difference of all of this acreage, whether it's 50% of Vermont's total land acreage being conserved in perpetuity forever, is a real concern for me. First of all, land that is conserved like that, somebody has to manage it. Somebody has to observe what's happening on this land because these these easements that are are perpetuated in a conservation easement, a lot of times require lot of different things to be looked after. Again, a concern that I have even as a lister in my town, I had a conservation easement come through on a property that would not allow mining of any type. Well, this particular property, believe it or not, was already had the mining rights reserved by another group, and they'd been paying on them. There was a value to that. They've been paying taxes on them. And when I reached out to the group that was conserving this acreage, I I asked what what the issue was. Why why could you do this? They said that they didn't believe the other group would take out an option on this. And if they did, they would beat them in court. So again, that's just one example of some conservation easements on a piece of property that has some concerns for me. Madam Speaker, last year, the rural caucus reached out to you and tried to get some testimony in committee. It it never happened. I reached out to you as well. Fortunately, this year, we did reach out to you again, and we had some great testimony, the week before crossover. We had individuals from the, Forest Products Association. We had a member here in our chamber who's an environmentalist and logger. We had the past deputy commissioner of Forest Parks and Recs who testified, and we also had the, member from the Vermont Realtors Association. Again, it it was great testimony. We've had a number of people, maybe even some of you in the chamber here have recently been reached out by many rural constituents in regards to what this means. And I and, again, I think it's it's an opportunity for us to to listen to the folks in the in the rural communities. Even the letters that I that I read yesterday, you might have heard me mention one town had mentioned act 59 in particular. So, again, the consideration is out there for what that means to tie up in perpetuity forever, 50% of our land. Again, I can't imagine that that's good, and I I had the number of folks that did testify, testify in that regard, how whether it's for managed forest land, for wildlife, the forest products industry, agriculture, you name it. So, again, madam speaker, this is an important amendment to this, to this bill. I think it's it's important too as well to understand that, even even in act 59 and act one eighty one, the charge or the act talked about, it's a it's an act regarding biodiversity and community resilience. Both of them had that in their charge. So again, madam speaker, I I hope folks can can understand how important it is to the rural community and that members can support the amendment. Thank you.

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

[Representative John L. Bartholomew (Hartland)]: Madam speaker, s three twenty five doesn't address what constitutes conserved land in the conserved land inventory. So this amendment relates to a different topic that introduces an independent question and changes the scope of the bill. So I do not believe it's germane to the bill.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Can I see members up at the podium, please? The house of skinnedies. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Member from Heartland, I find your point of order well taken. Senate bill three twenty five pertains to regional planning and act two fifty tier jurisdiction, but the amendment that has been offered by the member from Lowell would amend what constitute conserved land in the conserved land inventory that is a different topic. It would introduce an independent question and change the scope of the bill. Therefore I again find your point of order well taken because under our rules, the amendment is not germane. So with that now prior to third reading, the member from Williamstown, representative Dobrovich offers an amendment that the first assistant clerk emailed to members at 11:47 today. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Williamstown.

[Representative Joshua Dobrovich (Williamstown)]: Thank you, madam speaker. My amendment today is mostly the same as the one I presented yesterday. I took the time to reflect on what I heard from the committee on environment, and I removed the last sentence which gave the municipalities the final say, and I changed the date back to the date that was passed by the senate to 2030. And what I presented today is the this piece was in the original bill that came over from the senate that was voted on the voted to come across on the floor of the senate. Those are the only changes, and I did this because, again, by increasing the number of communities that benefit from the interim housing exemptions, we can focus on near term housing growth in more areas that are already developed and can continue to encourage home building in dense areas including in rural Vermont. Thank you.

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

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. On a straw poll vote vote of eight three zero, your committee on environment found this amendment unfavorable, and we ask you to please vote no. The issues remain the same today, as yesterday. The amendment would affect towns that depend on act two fifty for review of larger developments, and they have not been asked if they want this change. Again, we ask you to please vote no on this amendment.

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

[Representative William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: Madam speaker. While Ways and Means appreciates the present presenters efforts to make this amendment more favorable, we found this amendment to be unfavorable on an eight two one straw poll vote.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: So the question is, shall the house amend its proposal of amendment as offered by the member from Williamstown? Are you ready for the question? Member from Cavendish.

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Once again, yesterday, I supported this amendment. Today, I do as well. My town is one of the ones that would be affected by this that could help us to build housing. We have no zoning, but we do have sewer. I've found so far one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine other towns this would affect. Orleans, Barton, Glover, Lunenburg, Williamstown, Roxbury, Bridgewater, Heartland, and Vernon. Yesterday's amendment was stronger. It included the municipalities in it. Today's is back to the senate, and I urge the body to support this as it would help our towns. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the house amend its proposal of amendment as offered by the member from Williamstown, member from Hartford?

[Representative Kevin "Coach" Christie (Hartford)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I do appreciate the efforts that were made to improve this amendment, but I think the other objections still stand on this, mainly that the committee looked at this. It was part of the bill that came over from the senate, and it was removed. And then the bill was passed out of the environment committee unanimously. But I also think a bigger concern is that you've got these towns where if the development comes in, they've been relying on act two fifty for fifty years to review these plans. And now we would have a situation where up to these, you know, these units of housing could be built without any permitting. And I think it would I think a lot of municipal planners and towns would be surprised to realize that there would be these these size of projects being built without any act two fifty review. So I would ask that the body vote no on this amendment. The

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: question is, shall the house amend its proposal of amendment as offered by the member from Williamstown? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The nays appear to have it. The nays do have it and you have declined to amend the house proposal of amendment. Now prior to third reading, the member from Barrie City, representative Boutin offers an amendment that the first assistant clerk emailed to members at 12:32 today. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Barrie City.

[Representative Michael Boutin (Barre City)]: Madam speaker, I would rise to introduce you to my wetlands amendment. I found a way. This wetlands amendment I've been working on for some time. This amendment is narrow. It has a limited impact on wetlands. It does not apply statewide to every project. It does not open the door to unlimited development in sensitive areas. What it does is simple. For housing projects that already qualify for interim housing exemptions in this bill, it accepts the current map wetlands as the baseline and allows class two wetland buffers to be 25 feet. That is important. Vermont is in a serious housing crisis. According to the information provided by ACCD, Vermont needs thousands of additional homes every year to meet demand, and yet only three states in the country issued fewer housing permits than Vermont in 2024. This is not an abstract debate. This is affecting working families, seniors, young people, employers, municipalities, and our tax base. The Agency of Natural Resources attempted to pass similar language. This amendment applies to housing and mixed use housing projects in areas where the state has already said it wants growth to happen. Downtowns, village centers, growth centers, neighborhood development areas, tier one a and tier one b areas, in locations that meet the interim act two fifty housing exemption. It is also important to note that local zoning still applies. Historic preservation still applies. River corridor rules still apply. Stream alter alteration rules still apply. Waste water and water treatment requirements still apply. That matters because we cannot keep saying we want housing in our designated growth areas and then regulate those same areas as if they are remote undeveloped land. This amendment changes the buffer for Class II wetlands to 25 feet within those targeted areas and it also accepts the mapped wetlands. That is an important point. I'm not asking the body to ignore wetlands. I'm not asking the body to pretend wetlands do not exist. The amendment accepts the Vermont significant wetlands inventory maps and uses those maps as regulatory base line for those housing projects. ANR has defended that approach. They explained that the state has invested in improving those maps, that the maps are being updated using better methodology, and that relying on mapped wetlands gives applicants, municipalities, and the public more certainty. That matters right now. Wetland delineation can only, I'm sorry. Right now, wetland delineation can only reliably happen during parts of the year. Developers are often told to delineate first and design second. That can mean months of delay before a housing project can even move forward. We talk all the time in this chamber about affordability. We talk about property taxes. We talk about young people leaving Vermont. We talk about the need to grow our grand lists. But at some point, those conversations have to turn into actual decisions. This amendment is one of those decisions. In defending similar language, ANR made another important point. Allowing housing and protecting wetlands are not mutually exclusive. Most wetlands in Vermont remain fully protected, including class one wetlands and class two wetlands outside these designated growth areas. This change is limited to a small portion of the state where they are trying to concentrate growth. That is the whole point of smart growth. We should be encouraging housing where infrastructure already exists, where municipalities are prepared for growth, and where development helps reduce pressure on farms, forests, and rural land. If we do not build in places like Berry City, then we are what are we actually doing? This amendment is not anti environment. It's pro housing, pro smart growth, and pro common sense. I would be remiss if I did not add this little fact concerning wetlands loss. The most recent report regarding wetlands says that we lost point 82% of an acre, but yet conserved 135 acres in 2024. Madam Speaker, we cannot solve Vermont's housing crisis by saying yes in theory and no in practice. With that, I appreciate the offer that you and the member from Middlebury to sit down and try to find a path forward. And due to that, I ask the leave of the house to withdraw my amendment.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Absent objection, leave is granted. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk]: S three twenty five, an act relating to regional planning and act two fifty tier jurisdiction.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? Member from Essex Junction?

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: Madam speaker, act one eighty one and s three twenty five tackle the largest land use reform our state has attempted since the inception of act two fifty. I would like to thank the committees that have worked on these issues and also thank the body for supporting the passage of s three two five and the many Vermonters that have weighed in showing both support and concerns. It is clear that we needed to slow down and all voices are part of the conversation, including rural communities and to ensure that we have endorsed a process to do that in a meaningful way. I do want to add the historical perspective which has been left conversation. The framework for act one eighty one came from a decade of work that included thousands of Vermonters over the years. From public hearings to working groups to statewide surveys to witness testimony to public comments. The voices included citizens from every every corner of the state, housing developers, towns and cities, farmers, historic preservationists, regional planners, the chambers of commerce, environmental and forestry representatives, municipal officials, and the administration itself, including the Vermont State Office of Racial Equity, the Agency of Natural Resources, and the Natural Resources Board. All of that input led to legislative land use reform to accelerate housing while upholding the values of a healthy environment, including our working lands. And it was always important that the details would need to be worked out in a way that worked for our communities. We saw how that process did not roll out in the way we intended, and we are making corrections now. Let's strive to get the details right, acknowledge that there are many important voices to bring to this crucial conversation. Let's move forward understanding that we have common values which are housing, maintaining our working lands, and protecting our environment. I look forward to voting yes and moving this policy forward.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have passed the bill in concurrence with proposal of amendment. Members now will take up senate bill two zero eight, which is an act relating to standards for law enforcement identification. Member from Essex Junction.

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: Madam speaker, I move that s two zero eight be delayed two legislative days.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Essex Junction moves that we postpone action on senate bill two zero eight for two legislative days. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have postponed action on senate bill two zero eight until next Tuesday. Now we'll turn to senate bill two zero nine which is an act relating to prohibiting civil arrests in sensitive locations. The bill was referred to the committee on judiciary which recommends that the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as printed in today's calendar. The member from Brattleboro, representative Goodnow will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk]: S two zero nine, an act relating to prohibiting civil arrest in sensitive locations.

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

[Representative Ian Goodnow (Brattleboro)]: S two zero nine amends the civil arrest prohibition statute found in 12 VSA thirty five seventy seven. Current law in Vermont protects a person from being subject to a civil arrest while traveling to, entering, remaining at, or returning from a court proceeding. S two zero nine amends the statute to add more locations where a person is protected from a civil arrest. Madam Speaker, while this bill relates to any type of civil arrest in Vermont, for example common law civil arrests while antiquated are not prohibited in our state, much of the discussion related to this bill has rightly focused on federal immigration enforcement. Given that, I wanna take a moment to remind the body about the difference between criminal and civil immigration violations and arrest warrants as they relate to s two zero nine. Under title eight of The US code, there are both civil and criminal immigration violations. Depending on the violation, federal authorities can obtain a warrant to arrest or detain an individual. Immigration civil arrest warrants are administrative warrants signed by an immigration officer, not a judge. They are issued for civil violations of immigration law. They do not grant authority for agents to enter private residences or non public areas of a business without consent. These warrants deal exclusively with civil immigration offenses, which are administrative violations handled by immigration courts resulting in penalties like deportation rather than criminal penalties like imprisonment. Examples of this type of violation include overstaying a visa, unlawful presence after legal entry, unauthorized employment, and violating non immigrant status terms. On the other hand, criminal immigration arrest warrants are judicial warrants issued and signed by a judge or magistrate. It is based on a probable cause that a crime was committed and grants law enforcement the authority to enter private property to make an arrest. These warrants deal with criminal immigration off offenses, which are federal offenses punishable by fines and imprisonment, which are distinct from civil immigration violations. Examples of this type of criminal violation include illegal entry, illegal reentry after deportation, marriage fraud, document fraud, and specific crimes of violence. S two zero nine relates solely to those individuals alleged to have committed civil violations and would be subject to a civil arrest warrant and would protect those individuals in sensitive locations where essential services or rights are provided. The bill is unconcerned with those who are suspected of having committed an immigration, federal, or state criminal law and would not in any way restrict the execution of a criminal judicial warrant. Madam speaker, s two zero nine deals with a core feature of Vermont's inherent sovereignty. Ensuring its essential government services, its hospitals, schools, and social services can operate and be accessed by residents without disruption posed by civil arrests and to counter the chilling effect caused by immigration enforcement activities that prevent Vermonters from accessing those state benefits and services. Moving to the bill itself, section one on page twenty four seventy seven of today's calendar would amend 12 VSA thirty five seventy seven c one to create two new subsections. Subsection a would expand the court proceeding civil arrest protection to protect persons while traveling to, entering, remaining at or returning from an education institution. Those institutions include public schools, independent schools, regional CTE centers, education programs approved by the State Board of Education, prequalified kindergarten locations, post secondary schools, education programs operated by the BOCES, tutorial programs, and adult education programs. The protections also extends to grounds operated by, activities sponsored by, transportation provided by, and programs related to those educational institutions. The new Section B of 12 VSA 3577C1 creates a section for protecting individuals from civil arrest while on the premises of the following locations. Buildings owned and wholly controlled by the state or a political subdivision of the state where members of the public may enter in order to conduct government business. Offices operated by the Department of Motor Vehicles that are open to the general public like the DMV, public libraries, polling places, social services establishments which include but are not limited to crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, victim service centers, child advocacy centers, supervised visitation centers, family justice centers, facilities that serve disabled persons, homeless shelters, substance use disorder counseling and treatment facilities, and establishments distributing food and other essentials of life to people in need. Continuing with the list, places of worship, facilities licensed as a children camp or a day camp or summer camp, and finally, healthcare facilities. There are exceptions currently in statute where a civil arrest may take place in a court proceeding. These exceptions will also apply to the newly added locations. Any civil arrest pursuant to a judicial warrant or court order may still occur, or a civil arrest for contempt of court or to main maintain order or safety in the court where the proceeding is occurring. In Subdivision C three titled remedies on page two four seventy eight of today's calendar amends language in subdivision a in two ways. First, removes the words or assisting before the words an arrest to clarify that only a person who is actually executing a civil arrest would be subject to false imprisonment or contempt proceedings. This narrows the scope of prohibited conduct and helps to clarify where the law may have been unclear before. Secondly, because more locations protect are protected from civil arrests and added to the bill, the existing remedy of contempt of court is clarified to only be available for a civil arrest that occurs in a court proceeding. This is because originally the prohibition only applied to court proceedings. The rest of the remedies remain the same as existing law as last amended in 2022. The next proposed change in current law is found in section four on page twenty four seventy nine of today's calendar, which is the definition section subdivision c four. There are two exceptions added to the definition of civil arrest, specifically that it does not include temporary custody of a person experiencing a mental health crisis pursuant to 18 VSA 7,404 or 7,105. I apologize. Further, the definition of education institutions is added which I detailed earlier. Additionally, definitions of children's camps, health care facilities, polling places, and public libraries are added with cross references to those definitions in existing Vermont law. Finally, section two would cause these amendments to 12 VSA thirty five seventy seven to take effect on passage. Madam speaker, through principles of federalism and the tenth amendment, Vermont is empowered to control the use of its own facilities, manage its internal affairs, and direct the control of its officials without federal interference. S two zero nine clearly establishes that that that control and protects Vermonters access to essential services and engagement in essential activities. I liken the protections of state sovereignty in this bill to a fence. S two zero nine expands that fence to protect those essential government functions and services beyond only court proceedings. The right to build the fence is settled law. The scope and shape of the fence is decided by us and may be clarified by the courts. Critically, s two zero nine clearly establishes what we as Vermonters feel are those services and benefits that should be within the fence of protection. Madam speaker, we heard from the following witnesses, the executive director from the Vermont Medical Society, the migrant justice leader from the migrant justice, the director of policy and legislative affairs from the attorney general's office, the director of policy from the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence, domestic and sexual violence, the director of the pediatric global health, the a lobbyist from the Vermont Library Association, the deputy secretary of state from the secretary of state's office, general counsel from the governor's office, a member of the of migrant justice, the senior executive director from the Vermont Principles Association, the executive director from Spectrum Youth and Family Services, the advocacy director from the ACLU of Vermont, legislative council from the Office of Legislative Council, the municipal policy and advocacy specialist from the Vermont Leagues of Cities and Towns, a reverend from the Vermont Interfaith Action, and the director of the civil rights unit of the office of the attorney general. The bill was reported favorably out of the house judiciary in a vote of six five zero and the committee respectfully asked the house to join us in supporting its passage.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: And now the member from Bennington, representative Greer offers an amendment to the report of the committee on judiciary that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Bennington.

[Representative William "Will" Greer (Bennington)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The amendment is on page two forty Sorry, 2,480 of the House calendar. If you would like to follow along very briefly, I'm gonna use the draft number 1.3. But I offer this amendment today because Vermonters are witnessing a federal administration that is pushing immigration enforcement to the maximum in ways that are undermining due process rights and public safety simultaneously. We're all seeing this play out in real time. So my amendment to S two zero nine is simple in that it officially ends statutory exemption for the governor to allow a municipality or law enforcement agency at the local or state level to enter into a so called two eighty seven g agreement. We should not put our governor or any future governor in a position to make decision decisions such as this independently of the legislature, especially since we have put into statute several limitations on these kinds of agreements. Now there is a whole lot of information out there about two eighty seven g agreements and particularly the recent surge in agreements going into force around the country that deliberately put our immigrant communities in danger and further erode trust in our law enforcement agencies that have been honest about their capacity and capability that they cannot handle these kinds of agreements to begin with as it diverts resources from the other important public safety work that they have been properly equipped to handle. I bring this amendment to the floor because while we are talking about sensitive locations and the list of protected places, what we should also examine is how location is data as well. How data can be used to inform where someone is located through sensitive information given through these agreements. And that's exactly what two eighty seven g agreements enable. Local police departments and agencies forced to give their data to federal authorities for the purpose of using immigration status to make discriminatory decisions on how to apprehend someone based on the several different models that the two eighty seven g program enables. One of which has been severely limited due to its constitutional violations as decided by the United States Supreme Court last year. In many cases, people who have been apprehended have been United States citizens and legal residents with proper documentation. So this goes beyond a particular population and has a broader effect on Vermonters at large. However, this morning, the judiciary committee heard my amendment today and found that it is not germane, and I respect their decision on that. And I believe that there will be a few different opportunities in the coming few days to bring this amendment forward again where it may be found germane. So with that, I do ask leave of the house to withdraw my amendment and encourage any members who wanna support this effort to reach out at any point in the coming days to learn more or find a way to help protect Vermonters information and support our immigrant community. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Absent objection, leave is granted. So the question is, shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary? Member from Sheldon.

[Representative Thomas Oliver (Sheldon)]: Madam speaker, I've had a unique perspective of seeing this from an angle of law enforcement and experience for many years, I'd like to share a few of my observations. The first observation is Vermont law enforcement officers are already do not conduct civil immigration arrests under our existing fair and impartial policing policy. In fact, Vermont law does not even make civil arrests of any kind without warrant, immigration, or otherwise, and it's not part of our legal framework. We do, however, have rare instances when Vermont law enforcement does arrest on civil warrants, and these are reserved typically for sheriff's offices. These are also handled quite differently than a typical criminal arrest This bill attempts to solve a problem Vermont police are not creating. Another concern is that two zero nine may increase officer hesitation further causing officer and public safety issues by exposing officers to personal lawsuits, damages, and legal consequences during rapidly evolving situations where split second decisions are often necessary. I'm fearful that the weight of these concerns could cause reluctance to one another, to help one another, and jeopardize long standing partnerships between our federal partners. I'm also concerned the bill creates a false sense of security for those it means to protect by suggesting certain locations are fully protected from federal immigration enforcement, especially given the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. It is dangerously disingenuous in my opinion. This legislation to be truly effective needs to begin by our federal representatives in Washington. Thank you for listening.

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

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: Madam speaker, I rise in support of s two zero nine. At its core, this bill is about ensuring that Vermonters can safely access essential institutions and services without fear of warrant warrantless civil arrest. Whether someone is bringing their child to school, seeking medical care, visiting a public library, accessing a shelter, or exercising their right to vote, those spaces should remain accessible and trusted. S two zero nine builds on protections Vermont already recognizes in our courts and extends them to other sensitive locations central to public life and community well-being. Importantly, this bill does not prevent criminal enforcement and does not prohibit arrests based on judicial warrants. It addresses civil arrest without judicial warrants, including administrative immigration warrants. This legislation reflects a simple principle. People should not be deterred from seeking education, health care, shelter, public services, or civic participation because of fear that entering those spaces could expose them to civil detention. S two zero nine also maintains accountability by preserving exist existing legal remedies for violations of these protections. This is a measured bill grounded in public access, community trust, and the continued functioning of institutions Vermonters rely on every day. I urge the body to support two zero nine and when the vote is taken, I ask that it be taken by role.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Essex Junction request that when the vote is taken, it be taken by role. If the member is sustained. The member is sustained. When the vote is taken it will be taken by roll. The question is shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary. Are you ready for the question? Member from Rutland City.

[Representative Mary E. Howard (Rutland City)]: Madam speaker, may I question the presenter from Brattleboro?

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

[Representative Mary E. Howard (Rutland City)]: Just a clarification. Whether or not alleged counsel or the judiciary committee reviewed this bill for potential supremacy clause or federal preemption issues, particularly given that the definition of civil arrest explicitly includes immigration related proceedings?

[Representative Ian Goodnow (Brattleboro)]: Yes. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Winooski.

[Representative Kate Nugent (Winooski)]: Madam speaker, fear keeps people from seeking medical care or contributing to our communities and accessing essential services, which just perpetuates poverty, it deepens inequities, and it harms our public health. But s two zero nine helps to ensure that public spaces remain accessible, safe, welcoming to us all while maintaining the important exceptions for judicial warrants and court safety.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Arsenault, Williston. Yes.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: I think his name is Two minutes. Will the house please come to order? Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? I would like to remind members that we are in the middle of a roll call vote. Members and guests are prohibited from using computers, phones, or any type of an electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes and conversation during a roll call. And 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 house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Austin at Colchester. Bailey of Hyde Park. Bartholomew of Heartland.

[Representative John L. Bartholomew (Hartland)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Bartley of Fairfax.

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Rebecca Venueski. Yes. Byron River Gens. Yes. Bishop of Colchester. Black of Essex? Yes. Bloomley in Burlington? Yes. Bosch at Clarendon? Putnam Berry City? No. Boyden of Cambridge? Yes. Brady of Williston? Brenigan of Georgia? Yes. Brigham of Saint Albans Town? No. Rhonda Richmond? Yes. Burditt of West Rutland? No. Burkhardt of Brattleboro?

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Burrows West Yes. Burrows of West Windsor? Windsor? Yes. Burditt Cabot? No. Campbell, Saint Johnsbury?

[Representative Kevin "Coach" Christie (Hartford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Canfield for Haven? Carris Duncan and Whitingham? Casey Montpeyer. Yes. Casey Hubbardton. No. Chapin at East Montpeyer. Yes. Charlton of Chester. Christie of Hartford. Gina of Burlington. Coffin and Cavendish.

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Cole of Hartford.

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Conlon and Cornwall.

[Representative Ian Goodnow (Brattleboro)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Cooper Ponnel.

[Representative Joshua Dobrovich (Williamstown)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Corcoran of Bennington. Yes. Critchlow, Colchester. Demar of Venusburg? No. Dickinson of Saint Owenstown? No. Deborah Debbie Dolan Essex? Yes. Dolan of Essex Junction? Yes. Dolan of St. Johnsbury? Donahue of Northfield? Duke of Burlington? Yes. Durfee of Chatsbury? Yes. Eastes of Guilford? Yes. Evans of Springfield?

[Representative William "Will" Greer (Bennington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Feltus of Linden? Yes. Galfetti at Barre Town? Garifuna of Essex?

[Unidentified member (roll call acknowledgments/brief interjections)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Woman of Rockingham? Yes. Goodnight, Branagan. Northfield? No. Branagan Jericho? Yes. Greer Bennington?

[Representative William "Will" Greer (Bennington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Greg Burditt? Yes. Greg Hogle? No. Hogle? Yes. Randolph. Yes. Yes. Houghton Hogle? Domestic Junction.

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Howard Doretland City. Yes. Hallander Rutland Town. No. Hoeder Hartford. Yes. Hunter Manchester. James Manchester?

[Unidentified member (roll call acknowledgments/brief interjections)]: Yes. Have a spinner book.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Kesar, Rutland City? Kimmel Woodstock? Yes. Krapner, Burlington? Yes. Courtenayzer, Battleboro? Yes. Crestmont, South Burlington? Yes. Leber and Morgan? No. Mollie Schauburn? Alona South Burlington? Yes. Ela Morristown? Yes. Alicia Franklin? Lipsky Stow?

[Representative Michael Boutin (Barre City)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Llunga Newfane?

[Representative Ian Goodnow (Brattleboro)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Llunga Milton?

[House Reading Clerk]: Yes. Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Llunga Leaders of Lincoln? Yes. Llunga of St. Albans

[Representative Joshua Dobrovich (Williamstown)]: City? Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Maguire of Rutland City? Malay Pittsburgh. No. Marcona Coventry. No. Masala Thetford. Yes. McKenna Montpelier. Yes. McCoy Pultney. Yes. McGillard Port. Nicholas Milton? Yes. Mollie Talas? Been here. South Burlington? Yes. Morgan Ela Milton?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Morgan Emma Milton?

[Representative Kevin "Coach" Christie (Hartford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Or Springfield?

[Representative Thomas Oliver (Sheldon)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Or C Bennington? Yes. Laurel Weston?

[Representative Kevin "Coach" Christie (Hartford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Roeke Putney? Yes. Nelson and Derby? Aye. Nielsen and Brandon? Niagara Bennington? North of Harrisburg. Yes. Mollie S. Volkhardt.

[Representative Michael Boutin (Barre City)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Newgen of South Burlington. Yes. O'Brandon Tunbridge. Yes. Cody of Burlington. Oliver of Sheldon. Olson of Starksboro. Yes. Page of Newport City. No. Parsons of Newbury. Hezzo of Colchester. Yes. Pintinolo Dorset.

[Representative John L. Bartholomew (Hartland)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Hinesburg?

[Representative William "Will" Greer (Bennington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Powers of Waterford? No. Priestly Bradford? Yes. Richard Paulette?

[Representative Michael Boutin (Barre City)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Columbia B. Lyndon? Yes. Rachel Sander Burlington? Yes. Sekowitz Randolph? Yes. Shia Middlebury? Yes. Scalia Burlington?

[Representative Kevin "Coach" Christie (Hartford)]: No.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Sheldon of Middlebury? Yes. Cecilia Dover?

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Susie at Barrytown? Yes. Southworth of Walden? Yes. Squirrel of Underhill? Yes. Studying in Milton? Yes. Stevens Waterbury?

[Representative Kevin "Coach" Christie (Hartford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Stone of Burlington? Sweeney of Shelburne?

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Taylor Munden? Thomas Tomlunowski? Yes. Torrey Marktown?

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: Walker Swanton? Waters Of Zacchae Berry City? Yes. Waters Evans of Charlotte? Yes. Wells Of Brownington? No. White Whitesfield? West Bethle? Yes. Winter Budlow? Wood Of Waterbury? Yes. Ichavoni, Morristown? Yes. Bailey Pied Park? Bosch at Clarendon? Christine Hartford, Gina Burlington, Donahue Northfield, Logan of Burlington, Mollie of Callis, Nielsen of Brandon, Ooty Burlington, Parsons of Newberry, and Taylor Mendon.

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

[Representative Angela Arsenault (Williston)]: I was proud to vote yes on s two zero nine. This bill is an is an example of Vermont exercising our constitutional right as a state to protect core governmental services. We're drawing a line around these vital services and the locations at which they are accessed. Given the unfortunate and unlawful actions of ICE on behalf of the federal government, I'm confident that we not only have the right to take this step, we have a responsibility to do so.

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

[Unidentified member (roll call acknowledgments/brief interjections)]: Madam speaker, by passing s two zero nine, we take a small step to protect all Vermonters' access to important places in our communities, places like schools, childcare centers, and libraries where they might be accessing services for themselves or for an elderly parent or for their children. Just as important, S209 would keep these institutions free from fear and disruption for anyone, for you, for me, for every Vermonter who might happen to be there on any given day. I was glad to vote yes.

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

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: When parents are afraid to send their children to school, it harms those children, those parents, the other children in the school, and the community as a whole. Fearing civil arrest in a place of worship is a profound violation of our fundamental freedom of religion. This bill restores the sanctity of our schools and our churches.

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

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: Madam speaker, it was noted yesterday that the previous bill brought hundreds of people to the state house to be heard. I note that this issue addressed in s two zero nine is one of the issues that put thousands to the state house. Thousands more came out in Brattleboro, thousands in Burlington, and thousands across the state of Vermont. Thousands and thousands of Vermonters want to be heard on this and address the atrocities on behalf of the current regime in the White House. My vote for s two I nine two zero nine tells those thousands of Vermonters we're listening.

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

[Representative Abbey Duke (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, someone asked me if I thought his pregnant wife needed to seek medical treatment. She was bleeding and they were too afraid to seek medical assistance. My hope is this bill will make a difference.

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

[Representative Kari Dolan (Waitsfield)]: Madam speaker, I voted yes on s two zero nine. This bill furthers protections for Vermonters, allowing them to carry on with their daily lives, going to school, to the library, to the doctor, to social services without fear of being civilly detained for immigrations and customs violations unless a judicial warrant has been attained. We all are aware of situations across this country and in our state where immigration and customs enforcement has gone awry, needlessly detaining, harming, and in some situations, even killing innocent Americans. This bill aims to stop miscarriage such miscarriages of justice. ICE officials may still pursue their work, but with clearer guidelines that better protect Americans and Vermonters.

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

[Representative Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Essex)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

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

[Representative Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Essex)]: I rise to give my resounding support of s two zero nine. This bill came from a groundswell of support from around the state from immigrants, allies, and service providers. We heard loud and clear that Vermonters do not want to allow our churches, schools, and essential public buildings to fall under the violence that we witnessed around the country and in our own city of South Burlington. Since 1993, presidents from both sides of the aisle have protected these locations from civil immigration enforcement to one degree or another. That is no longer the case. And as a result, we're seeing that 73% of immigration arrests are on individuals without any conviction. Vermont must stand with immigrant rights and by so doing, protect due process and civic life.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members, please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 109. Those voting no, 30. The ayes have it and you have proposed to the senate to amend the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay.

[House Clerk (Roll Call Announcer)]: The Nay.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Members, the final bill on our action calendar today is house bill nine thirty three which is an act relating to miscellaneous administrative and policy changes to the tax laws. The senate passed the bill in concurrence with a proposal of amendment that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Woodstock.

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Madam speaker, h nine three three is a miscellaneous tax bill. The senate voted it out on Friday, May 1 and we took it up on Tuesday, May 5. And we found that there are significant differences between what the senate thought was appropriate and what we felt was appropriate. So with the time remaining, we felt it is best to ask for a committee of conference to see if we can resolve our differences. So to not concur but ask for a committee of conference.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Woodstock moves that the house refused to concur in the senate proposal of amendment and that a committee of conference be appointed. 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 refused to concur in the senate proposal of amendment and requested a committee of conference. Pursuant to your action, the chair appoints the following members to serve on the part of the house, The member from Brattleboro, representative Corcoranheiser. The member from Fairhaven, representative Canfield. And the member from Woodstock, representative Kimbell. Members that completes the orders of the day. Are there any announcements? Seeing none, member from Pulteney, can you please offer us a motion to adjourn until Friday, May 8 at 09:30AM.

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion this body stand and adjournment until Friday, 05/08/2026 at 09:30AM.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it and this body stands in adjournment until tomorrow at 09:30AM.