Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats. Good afternoon. The devotional today will be led by representative Daisy Berbeco of Winooski.

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Good afternoon. Good afternoon. May is mental health awareness month And every May since 1949, people have observed Mental Health Awareness Month and been educating people, been providing support, and working together to fight stigma around mental illness. I joined this fight around 2010 when I spent the following decade approximately working in Washington, advocating, on behalf of mental health providers and people with, mental health conditions and addictions. When I came to Vermont, there was clearly one person who had been behind the integrated and holistic system that Vermont has and continues to improve upon every day. And that person was representative Donahue. She's still such a prominent figure and someone that guides many of us in this field. So when it came to mental health awareness month, I really wanted her thoughts, and I'm really honored that she allowed me to share them with you all today. I wanna thank representative Berbeco for inviting me to share this devotional in honor of National Mental Health Awareness Month. For many years, before it got too tattered, I had a bumper sticker that read, sanity, a renewable resource. What an apt description. However one might define it, we all struggle with fluctuations in our levels of sanity. Mental health is not a steady state for anyone anymore than we can predict or know when some other aspect of the stuff we're made of hits a stone on the side of the road. The recent past weeks have been a stark reminder to me of the fragility of life. When a blood vessel bursts in your brain without warning, you have no control over the over the events that chart the course towards survival as we make that journey that we call life. But the awareness we need to hold for mental health awareness month is that sanity is always renewable, always recoverable, always a part of the human experience that can be restored. And the ways to renew it are the same at any level, human connection. Many years ago at an airport, I missed a connecting flight. I hadn't slept well for several days and it was the last straw at a time when I was still very vulnerable to my own mental illness. I completely fell apart, huddled on a bench crying. A gentleman came up to me and pointed out his wife sitting nearby and he said, we noticed you were having a tough time. Is there something we can do to help? Would you let us know? I snapped it and leave me alone. He, no doubt, went on with his life thinking no more about it other than a brief regret that he hadn't been able to help me, but he had helped immeasurably. It was like a warm human embrace around me. Someone noticed and someone cared, and I'll never I'll never forget and have gratitude for it. I haven't to this day. Our communities of human connection, the god mystery that is called forth when we act as a community of love can function without ever knowing the impact of our words and our deeds. But if kindness is our watchword, it can always be on the side of a caring community of support, building our resources against the world's insanity. It renews us both in receiving and in giving. The next time you see someone who's struggling against the crosscurrents of sanity, put aside your fear of being intrusive or violating some social construct. That social construct that says that mental health is strange and different from any other health. Act as though you saw them twist an ankle and fall or found out that they had the flu or that they had a brain aneurysm burst. Reach out as one member of the human community to another to give them a word of hope and support. Remember that sanity is a fragile resource within each of us, but it's always renewable. Happy Mental Health Awareness Month, representative Donahue.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members, we have a senate bill for referral today. Senate bill three twenty nine is an act relating to criminal procedures involving firearms introduced by senator Bartholomew. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: S three twenty nine, an act relating to criminal procedures involving firearms.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Now the bill has been read the first time and is referred to the committee on judiciary. Members we have two bills on the notice calendar requiring referral to a money committee pursuant to house rule 35A. Both of these bills carry an appropriation and therefore are referred to the committee on appropriations. They are Senate Bill three twenty three which is an act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects and senate bill three twenty six which is an act relating to miscellaneous amendments to laws relating to motor vehicles. In addition, earlier today, the committee on government operations and military affairs reported favorable with amendment on senate bill two seventy eight which is an act relating to cannabis affecting the revenue of the state. The bill is referred to the committee on ways and means pursuant to house rule 35A pending its entry on the notice calendar. Members we have a joint senate resolution to take up at this time. JRS 53 is a joint resolution relating to weekend adjournment on 05/15/2026. It was offered by senator Bartholomew was read and adopted on the part of the senate. Please listen to the reading of the resolution.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: JRS 53, joint resolution relating to weekend adjournment on 05/15/2026. Resolved by the senate and house of representatives that when the two houses adjourn on Friday, 05/15/2026, it'd be to meet again no later than Tuesday, 05/19/2026.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Now you've heard the reading of the resolution and the question is shall the house adopt the resolution in concurrence. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and the resolution is adopted in concurrence. 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 eighty four is a house concurrent resolution honoring former senate majority leader and department of state's attorney and sheriff's executive director John f Campbell, for his outstanding public service career. Please listen to the reading of the resolution.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Whereas, upon graduating from the University of Florida, John Campbell joined the Broward County Sheriff's Office as a patrol officer. And whereas, after experiencing the rough and tumble of hands on law enforcement, he opted for a potentially more sedate work environment, graduating from what it today is Nova Southeastern University Shepherd Broad College of Law. And whereas, upon heeding the call to go north young man and relocating to Windsor County, he practiced as a private attorney. And whereas in 2000, John Campbell successfully stood for a Windsor County senate seat and served continuously until 2016, including several terms as a respected senate majority leader. And whereas in 2016, he became the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs executive director, and in that role was a decisive and thoughtful leader. And whereas under his guidance, the department improved its administrative support in all 14 counties. And whereas, although charged with being the state's attorney's and sheriff's advocate, John Campbell did not shy away from criticizing severe professional misconduct. And he enthusiastically supported an ultimately unsuccessful legislative effort to impose new accountability for these elected county officials in the belief that Vermonters deserve the best from their public servants. And whereas reflecting on his quarter of a century in state government, John Campbell is most proud of his 2,009 co lead sponsorship of s one fifteen, for which he successfully fought to override a gubernatorial veto to establish marriage equality in Vermont. And his lead sponsorship in 2015 of s 31, a broad gun control measure that among other provisions would have mandated a federal background check on all Vermont gun sales. And whereas John Campbell has concluded his state government career to pursue his passion to paint works of art. Now therefore be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives that the General Assembly honors former Senate Majority Leader and Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriff's executive director, John f Campbell, for his outstanding public service career. And be it further resolved that the secretary of state be directed to send a copy of this resolution to John f Campbell.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are there any announcements? Member from Virgins.

[Representative Matthew Birong (Vergennes)]: Madam speaker, members, it's an honor today to rise in recognition of former senate president pro tem John Campbell. Titles like that carry weight in this building, but anyone who has spent time with John knows that what truly defined his leadership was not the title he held but the way he carried it. Some leaders are remembered for the bills they passed, some for what they said. John will be most remembered for how he made people feel and how he managed to make us laugh along the way. Behind the role was a person of deep humanity. John brought humor into rooms that needed it most, often at the exact right moment and never at someone else's expense. He had a way of putting people at ease, of reminding us that even in the middle of hard debates, we were still colleagues, still neighbors, still Vermonters trying to do our best. That sense of humanity was matched by deep empathy. John had a genuine instinct to listen, especially to those who might not otherwise go unheard. He didn't just hear people, he made the room for them. Whether someone came to him with influence or without it, they were treated with the same respect and attention. That is not always the case or the easiest path in public life, but it is the one he chose again and again. As a senate leader, John faced some of the most difficult and controversial issues to come before the state house. He understood that leadership is not about doing what is easy or even what is popular in the moment. It is about doing what is right. And time and time again, he chose the harder path when he believed it was the better one. That kind of courage leaves a mark not just on policy, but on this institution itself. And, of course, those of us who have worked with John know there's another side of him as well. There's a certain unpredictability, a tendency perhaps to just be a little distractible, a willingness to follow a thought or a story or a moment of humor wherever it might lead, and yet somehow those moments never detracted from his leadership, they managed to enhance it. They remind us not to take ourselves too seriously and that a bit of goofiness can go a long way in a place like this. When you put all of that together, his humor, his empathy, his willingness to stand up for the underdog, and his courage to take on hard issues, you begin to see the whole picture of his legacy. John Campbell did more than help shape policy in Vermont. He helped shape a culture of this building, and he made it a little kinder, a little more thoughtful, and a lot more human. Today, we recognize just not excuse me. Today, we recognize not just a public servant, but a colleague, a mentor, and a friend to many. We are grateful for his years of service, for the example he set, and for the way he reminded all of us what leadership can look like at its best. Though he didn't recently retire from the legislature, as I repair repair prepare for my retirement from this position, I wanted to take a time to honor one of the people who had a great impact on my service here in the state house. Madam speaker, members, please join me in recognizing someone I consider a true state treasure.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the guest of the member from Virgin's please rise and be recognized? Are there any further announcements? Member from Burlington.

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Today is the day and you all showed up and showed out. Thank you so much for all of your contributions to the diaper drive. This event, just a reminder, is running through the Vermont Family Readiness Program with support from the Vermont Chamber and our very own Vermont National Guard and Veterans Affairs Caucus focusing on supporting families in our communities who are navigating the challenges of deployment. I wanted to welcome somebody to the chamber today who is behind this effort, and that is sergeant first class Jessie Smith. She serves with the Vermont Air National Guard. She's the yellow ribbon coordinator, the state soldier and family readiness group leader, and she is in the balcony. Please join me in welcoming her to the chamber.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the guests of the member from Burlington please rise and be recognized. Are there any further announcements? Member from Rutland City.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'd like to welcome a constituent and a present alderman for Rutland City along with many other things. Bill Gillum is in the house. Please help us welcome him.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the guest member from Rutland City please rise and be recognized? Member from Barre Town.

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Thank you, madam speaker. My seatmate and I are honored to welcome and recognize a guest in the chamber today who is truly deserving of this body's appreciation and respect, Norma Malone. For more than two decades, Norma has devoted herself to public service on behalf of Barrytown and the state of Vermont. Her record of service is remarkable and not only for its length, but for the dedication, discipline, and excellence she brought to every role she accepted. Last week, Norma attended her final meeting as chair of the Barre Town Select Board, concluding eight years of service on the board. In those eight years, she never missed a single meeting. Perfect attendance throughout her entire tenure. Norma served nine years in the Barrie Town budget committee and chaired the committee for eight of those years. Once again, she never missed a meeting. She helped craft budgets that were fiscally responsible while ensuring town employees had the equipment, staffing, and resources necessary to meet the needs of Barrytown residents. Norma also served on the district five act two fifty environmental commission, helping ensure development in the state within the guidelines of act two fifty. She dedicated years of service to public education through the Berry Unified Union School District Board and the Spaulding High School Board of Directors where she's also served seven years, five years as chair. Among her many accomplishment, one stands out as a lasting legacy for generations of students. Norma helped establish the Spaulding High School Scholarship Trust, a public charity dedicated to supporting the educational and career goals of graduates of Spaulding High School in the Central Vermont Career Center. Since its founding in 2014, she has served on the board of trustees. Today, this trust oversees approximately 8 and a half million dollars in managed funds and this year alone will award more than $450,000 to scholarships to graduating seniors. Norma's attention to detail is legendary. She misses nothing. Whether it is a typo, a math calculation, or language that is not quite right, Norma will find it. Many of us who have worked with her have benefited from her sharp eye, thoughtful judgment, and steady leadership. I can say personally, I am a better select board member and a better legislator because of Norma Malone. My seatmate sitting next to me was proofreading my communication here before we went on and wanted to make sure that I put we are better letters better legislators than just I. I do have one regret regarding Norma's years of public service. I don't know if it's her regret, but it is mine that she never served in this chamber or in the body next door. Because if she had, she would have accomplished something every one of us wants to accomplish when we're here, and that is make a difference. When I asked Norma what inspired her commitment to public service, she spoke about her oldest son who enlisted in the army at age 17 and was on to serve twenty three years on active duty. Norma said, I believe everyone has a responsibility to serve others within their capacity. My son's service has been a global on a global level. Mine has been at the local level. Each of us has something unique to offer. That belief that each of us has something unique to offer to service of others defines Norma's life and legacy. On behalf of this body, thank you, Norma. Thank you for your extraordinary service to Barrytown, to Vermont, and to the countless people whose lives are better because of your dedication. With us today honoring Norma is selectman Bob Nelson, recently elected board member Tracy Ennis, and the town manager Chris Violet. Madam speaker, please ask the body to help me welcome Norma Malone, a true public servant.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the guest of the member from Barrytown please rise and be recognized? Are there any further announcements? Member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Mollie S. Burke (Brattleboro)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Tomorrow will be our last climate solutions caucus meeting. We will have a presentation on energy affordability and reducing energy costs. Very timely topics. And we will also be serving pizza. So I hope you can join us. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are there any further announcements? Member from Hinesburg.

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to remind everyone of your invite to the Montpelier Transit Center from 04:30 to 06:30, and I think we'll be out in time to get to that. And the transportation for Vermont and VNRC will be honoring a member of this body who asked not to be named, but the representative from Brattleboro will be recognized for her eighteen years of service.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, orders of the day. Members we have an update on the bill order on our calendar today. We will start with proposal four, prop four and the next bill on the calendar is S212. We will be taking that up last. So the first bill will be proposal four and then we'll move down the calendar to S243 down. With that members, we begin with proposal four which is a proposed amendment to the constitution of the state of Vermont providing for equality of rights. Pursuant to chapter two, section 72 of the Vermont constitution, we are now in the second biennium of consideration of this constitutional proposal. This biennium, the senate adopted the constitutional proposal in concurrence with the preceding general assembly. And by the Vermont constitution, in order for this constitutional proposal to be submitted to the voters of the state at the twenty twenty six general election, the house must also adopt this constitutional proposal and concurrence this biennium by a majority of the house which means a majority of a house quorum. Pursuant to house rule 51A, proposal four was referred to the committee on judiciary which held a public hearing on this proposal and the committee recommends that the constitutional proposal be adopted in concurrence. The member from Burlington, representative Rachelson will speak for the committee. Please listen to the reading of the constitutional proposal.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Section one, purpose. A, this proposal would amend the constitution of the state of Vermont to specify that the government must not deny equal treatment under the law on account of a person's race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin. The constitution is our founding legal document stating the overarching values of our society. This amendment is in keeping with the values espoused by the current Vermont constitution. Amendment Chapter one, Article one declares that all persons are born equally free and independent and have certain natural inherent and unalienable rights. Chapter one, Article seven states that government is or ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people. The core value reflected in Article seven is that all people should be afforded all the benefits and protections bestowed by the government and that the government should not confer special advantages upon the privileged. This amendment would expand upon the principles of equality and liberty by ensuring that the government does not create or perpetuate the legal, social, or economic inferiority of any class of people. This proposed constitutional amendment is not intended to limit the scope of rights and protections afforded by any other provision in the Vermont constitution. B, providing for equality of rights as a fundament as a fundamental principle in the constitution would serve as a foundation for protecting the rights and dignity of historically marginalized populations and addressing existing inequalities. This amendment would reassert the broad principles of personal liberty and equality reflected in the constitution of the state of Vermont with authority, longevity, and symbolic importance. Section two, Article 23 of Chapter one of the Vermont Constitution is added to read. Article 23, Equality of Rights. That the people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. The state shall not deny equal treatment under the law on account of a person's race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin. Nothing in this article shall be interpreted or applied to prevent the adoption or implementation of measures intended to provide the quality of treatment opportunity for members of groups that have historically been subject to discrimination. Section three, effective date. The amendment set forth in section two shall become a part of the constitution of the state of Vermont on the first Tuesday after the November 2026 when ratified and adopted by the people of this state in accordance with the provisions of 17 VSA chapter 32.

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

[Representative Barbara Rachelson (Burlington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Prop four is entitled declaration of rights, government for the people, equality of rights, and if voted favorably by a majority of Vermonters in November, would put a clear equal protection guarantee in the Vermont constitution. Since prop four is a constitutional amendment and not a bill proposal, the rules and process are very different. I wanna take a few minutes to explain how a constitutional amendment process works in Vermont. Amendments to the Vermont constitution must be proposed in the senate and only every other biennium. Proposed amendments must pass the senate by a two thirds vote. No changes can be made by the house and it must pass the house by a majority vote. If all that successfully occurs, the very same proposed amendment must then be approved again in the next biennium. Again, starting in the senate before going to the house. It must pass each house without any changes by a simple majority vote. If it passes the second biennium, it is then placed on the next November general election to be ratified by Vermont voters. Prop four began its journey in the senate in 2024. It passed unanimously out of the senate judiciary committee of a vote of five zero zero and the full senate with a vote of twenty nine zero. It then passed out of the house judiciary committee on a vote of eleven zero zero and went on to the house floor and passed on a vote of a 140 to four. This biennium prop four unanimously passed the senate judiciary with a vote of five zero zero and went on to unanimously pass the full senate on a vote of twenty nine zero. It then returned to the house where prop four was sent to the house judiciary committee and passed the judiciary committee and now is up for a vote by the full house. Today, we have a rare and special opportunity to vote to put prop four on the ballot in November for all Vermonters to get to decide its future. We don't often get to give all of our constituents the opportunity to weigh in on what we vote on and what we work on. Over 26 states have adopted equal rights or equal protection provisions in their constitutions. Prop four would bring Vermont in line with that long standing constitutional tradition and most importantly, give Vermonters a critical constitutional protection. I will now do a walk through of prop four, which starts on page twenty seven thirty six of today's calendar. Section one states the purpose of the amendment. It's important to note upfront that this section will not appear in the constitution or on the ballot. Think of it as a legislative purpose section of a bill. It provides guidance as to the general assembly's intent but does not hold the same force and effect as the language that would be added to the ballot measure or the constitution. This section starts by restating the idea that the government must not deny equal protection under the law on account of a person's race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin. Section two is the part that would actually be added to our constitution and that would appear on the ballot before the voters. It is three sentences which I will take one by one. The first is this, that the people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. The concept of equal protection has a long history in our legal system. It was first stated explicitly in our federal constitution with the ratification of the fourteenth amendment. Since then, it has become the basis of so many of the landmark decisions that are the heart of the of that promise first made in the declaration of independence that we all are created equal. These are cases that we all know. Brown versus Board of Education, Loving versus Virginia, Griswold versus Connecticut, and more. Cases that have shaped our society to be more equal. These cases are the foundation of modern America, and their foundation is the equal protection clause. It may be natural to ask at this point if the federal constitution already has such a clause, why do we need it? There are several simple answers. First, the federal constitution represents a floor, not a ceiling of rights. It shows us the minimum we can do, not the maximum. Therefore, it's important that Vermont develop its own jurisprudence regarding equal protection and not simply rely on the one found in our federal constitution. States are afforded the right to provide additional protections and laws as long as they do not violate the United States constitution. The second sentence is, the state shall not deny equal treatment under the law on account of a person's race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin. This sentence is a departure from the federal constitution, which has no such enumerated protections. The characteristics mentioned in this sentence are often referred to as protected classes. Specific characteristics that we have learned are often the basis of discrimination. In short, what we are saying is that the government may not treat people differently on account of one of these characteristics, and to do so is unconstitutional. These protected classes are tried and true delineations supported by case law and statutory protections throughout our country and in our state. On a side note, last biennium, our committee consulted with our legislative council to determine if a closed list would exclude people being discriminated against for other reasons not on the list. And we felt very satisfied with what we learned. Legislative council provided case law to support the notion that courts may and have applied the protections of an equal rights amendment more widely than the closed list would indicate. And I have the chance to reconfirm this with our legislative council today. The third sentence reads, nothing in this article shall be interpreted or applied to prevent the adoption or implementation of measures intended to provide a quality of treatment and opportunity for members of groups that have had historically been subject to discrimination. This sentence clarifies that measures included those adopted in legislation that reduced discrimination would be permitted under Vermont's constitution. And finally, section three is the effective date and reads, the amendment set forth in section two shall become a part of the constitution of the state of Vermont on the first Tuesday after the November 2026 when ratified and adopted by the people of the state in accordance with the provisions of 17 PSA chapter 32. Proposal four would add new language to the Vermont constitution saying that every Vermonter every Vermonter has the right to be treated with dignity and fairness and that the state cannot discriminate against people based on their, oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. Based on race, sex, gender, identity, national origin, disability, religion, age, or sexual orientation, It makes these protections constitutional rather than statutory. In addition to holding a public hearing, your house judiciary committee heard from the following witnesses, the legislative council in the office of legislative council, the executive director of the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance, the executive director of the Vermont Commission on Women, a policy analysis with the Vermont Family Alliance, and the pastor of the Good Shepherd Lutheran Church. Vermont's constitution is its overriding and founding document. What is in it and what isn't says a great deal about Vermont and our values. The lack of an equal protection clause speaks volumes. Over 26 states have equal protection clauses. People have worked for years to have such a clause in our state, and it is time for us to join the over 26 states that have equal protection clauses. Utah and Wyoming have had such provisions since the eighteen nineties when their state constitutions were first adopted. Most states added equal rights amendments to their constitutions in the nineteen seventies during the push for the ratification for the federal equal rights amendment, While a handful adopted them in the decades since, when and several, as I mentioned, including Utah and Wyoming when their state constitutions were first adopted. Prop four is a structural modern modernization, not a symbolic gesture. It responds to documented inequities with a constitutional framework that strengthens judicial review and ensures durable protections for future generations. Today is a chance to enshrine our constitution, an important component that has been sorely lacking for too long. The ideal that equal protection of the laws extends to all people. The idea that everyone, regardless of who they are, deserve equal treatment by their government. Your house judiciary committee vote was eight three zero in favor of this constitutional proposal, and we ask for the body's support. Prop four gives Vermonters the chance to vote on clear constitutional promise of equal protection. And due to the significance of a proposed constitutional amendment, we request that the vote be taken by roll. Thank you madam speaker.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Burlington requests that when the vote is taken, it be taken by rolls. The member sustained. The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. The question is, shall the house adopt the constitutional proposal in concurrence? Are you ready for the question? Member from West Windsor. Thank

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: you, madam speaker. We have done a lot of memorable things in the six years I've held this seat that we can truly be tremendously proud of. And there are certainly moments that I will carry with me forever when I leave this body at the end of my term. One of those moments is now, when after four years we vote on whether to let all Vermonters decide whether we choose to let equal rights stand as one of our foundational precepts. The notion that our state doesn't already affirm equal protection and treatment under the law reveals a profound and common disconnect between which of our protections are foundational, which are assumed, and which may merely be temporal. Yes. We have statutes that provide certain protections. But during my time here in this state house, I have watched lawmakers repeatedly fail to ask who is being left out when we draft new laws. Too often, we do not ask who benefits, whether a bill creates more equitable and just systems for all Vermonters, or whether it may impose disparate harms on underrepresented communities. And yet we say the harmony of liberty exists because it is written into statute as though that alone is sufficient. But we know better. We know laws can be political at their roots, contain gaps that cause harm, create unfair advantages, or be implemented in ways that betray the spirit in which they were written. We know this because we make the sausage. And as Vermonters ourselves, we know the process as well as how the results play out in communities. Many Vermonters learn early that rights in practice are often unevenly distributed or applied according to whether those around them deem their humanity worthy of recognition and respect. That is not how liberty ought to function. We cannot allow the aspirational promise of equality to overshadow our pains to make it indelible. This constitutional amendment makes it a foundational obligation. It establishes at its very base what the state is forbidden to do and what it is bound to uphold. Rights that depend upon the goodwill of of a temporary majority are not rights at all. They're privileges, and privileges can be revoked unexpectedly and wholesale. Equality affirmed in a state constitution is more secure, more durable, and more evenly protected. It rejects the diminishment of anyone's rights. And so the true issue before us is whether Vermonters are prepared to transform the ideal of equality into a legal, moral, and civic obligation. The purpose of constitutionally equal protection and treatment is to officially restrain the impulse to turn difference into parenthetical hierarchy. It rejects evasion of the question of who is being left out. It says clearly that a person's humanity cannot be reduced by prejudice or custom or political convenience. It it codifies equality as the norm. This is not and should not be controversial. Prop four is an expression of faith in a future Vermont that refuses to play place conditions on human dignity. And if we vote to affirm that principle plainly, formally, and in the very constitution, It will earn us the solid ground a solid and even ground on which Vermonters can stand together shoulder to shoulder. And I ask this body to join me in voting in the affirmative. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the house adopt the constitutional proposal in concurrence? Are you ready for the question? Member from Stowe.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Madam speaker, rise to support this constitutional amendment, and I wanna thank the reporter for bringing up some of the history of this issue in the state of Wyoming. And brings me back to a very dark time when I was raising my three sons. There were two horrific crimes that occurred around the turn of this last century. One was a a black man was picked up in Texas with a flat tire. Pickup truck pulled by and attempted to convince this person we're gonna help him out, but they didn't. They beat him. They changed his body to the bumper of their truck and they dragged him to his death. And it was within a few months from that point out in the state of Wyoming, a gay man was picked up in a bar room and carried out. He was frigid cold. He was beaten not to death, but he was he was tied onto a barbed wire fence, bitter cold, died. These are two examples of horrific violations of human rights. They are they are examples of bigotry and racism and cruelty, which does exist. So I laud the supporter and reporter of this resolution for the fact that we have not arrived as a society, as a human species, to have enough kindness. And if we need state or constitutional support to protect all people, I vote yes. I urge the body to vote yes.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the house adopt the constitutional proposal in concurrence? Are you ready for the question? Member from Burlington.

[Representative Mary-Katherine Stone (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I just wanna point out that it says constitutional amendment in the calendar, not constitutional amendment, and I don't know if there's a process just to correct. It sounds really petty, but I'm and nitpicky, but I noticed it when I was reading.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the house please stand in recess for a moment? Will the House please come to order and members kindly take your seat. I'm going to take that as a point of inquiry and we it is a spelling error but that does not have an impact on the vote or procedure. Are you ready for the question? Member from Burlington.

[Representative Chris Taylor (Mendon)]: Speaker, I rise in support of proposal four because this is a moment when states must step forward to defend civil rights and democratic values that are increasingly under attack at the federal level. Across the country, we are watching hard fought rights rolled back, protections weakened, and entire communities made to feel less safe, less equal, and less seen under the law. In that environment, Vermont has a responsibility not simply to say what we believe, but to enshrine those beliefs in our constitution. Proposal four affirms the principle that government exists for the people and that every Vermonter is entitled to equal rights under the law. Constitutional amendments are rare. We should use them to protect the foundational values of a free and democratic society. At a time of growing division and democratic backsliding nationally, this amendment declares clearly that Vermont will remain committed to equality, dignity, and government accountable to the people. I urge the body to support proposal four.

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

[Representative Saudia LaMont (Morristown)]: Madam speaker, I was going to share some stories, but I I will I will defer on on the harsh realities that this constitutional amendment has impacts on. But I will share the sentiments of them and say, it is 2026, and we live in a Vermont where neighbors and people don't see the humanity of their others. And I could will say that with the experiences that my children, myself, my neighbors have experienced. I'll save you the gore. This is not a moment of abstraction. This is not about special rights, partisan politics, or ideology. It concerns democracy, integrity, and the dignity of all people. It is about whether fairness under the law will remain dependent on the shifting federal culture and doctrine. Across the country, we are watching in real time as long time standing civil rights and protections are weakened and rolled back and reinterpreted in ways that leave too many people vulnerable. Prop four meets this moment. It does not create new values. It affirms who we have always said we are, that all people born are born equally free and that the government exists for the benefit of all people, not just some. By placing equal protections explicitly in our constitution, we move from promise to action, from principle to protection. This is about clarity. This is about equity and equality. This is about president and ensuring that no Vermonters' rights, depending on the shifting politics or uncertain interpretation, exist. The time is now. The need is real. The responsibility is ours. I will be voting yes. And if other people value humans and their right to liberty and freedom and fairness and justice, I encourage you all to vote yes as well.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the house adopt the constitutional proposal in concurrence? Are you ready for the question? If so, member from Bennington.

[Representative Michael Nigro (Bennington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm just gonna share a story, and, actually, the member from STOW made me realize that I probably should tell this story. My great grandfather, my grandpa Greer, he was a county commissioner in Texas for twelve years from 1969 to 1981, about an hour away from where James Byrd junior was dragged down a country road with chained up, and that was about forget the timeline of that. But I'll I'll I'll stick to the story. He was elected in 1969, which was just a few short years after the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress. He was a Democrat through and through, but at that time, he was a minority among his political colleagues that he served with. He believed in equality. He did not come into an upbringing in Louisiana that supported equality of gender, of race, or even of religion. He barely got a partial high school education before he dropped out of school to go to work. It was through those early formative years where he got out of his surroundings and worked with people that he may never have been exposed to in his small rural county. When he decided to raise a family and set up a country store, he bought a home and he bought a truck to deliver groceries. And he would take those groceries around, and at the time, he was the only only white man in that county that delivered groceries to black families. Sorry. He would get into arguments with his neighbors about this unusual practice at the time, and he would just simply say, they got to eat too. He began to build up courage as he grew older. When he first ran for office, desegregation was a big topic in local politics in Texas. Many local governments were tasked with how to break down barriers and many were aimed at keeping things the way they had always been. And his court at the time was no exception. He started slowly with working individually with businesses and negotiating with schools and other institutions rather than slamming down the book. Even though he knew what was right in his heart. And he also knew that others weren't in the same heart or mind as him. And that was tough for him to process. And it wasn't until my dad was 11 years old in 1980 that the doctor's office patient room finally was desegregated in his county fifteen years after federal law was adopted. Proposal four may just be words on a ballot that would be added to our state constitution. One could make that argument to reduce its significance but I don't think there are many that will. But what it's doing is reaffirming that we are committed to equality and protecting every from honor's rights. And today, during our lunch break, I called my grandmother on her birthday. She just turned 76. And when I told her, I was gonna mention grandpa on the floor about proposal four. She said in her little southern accent, which she's originally from Ohio, so she inherited that, grew on her. She said, well, I'll be. And I know what that means. She's proud to know that while we're talking about enshrining equality in our constitution, that I thought about the foundational people like grandpa who laid the work so that we could all live together as one. And a few months ago, I came out to my grandmother, not by choice. And I asked her what grandpa would have thought about me being gay because I knew he was very religious. He was a Southern Baptist. And my great grandmother was a Pentecostal. And she said, I can tell you without a doubt that no religion could come between him and his great grandbaby. And I never met him, but I believe her. I'm carrying his spirit with me today knowing that he unfortunately had to spend so much of his life fighting prejudice and discrimination. So with that, madam speaker, I look forward to supporting proposal four, and I hope others join me as well.

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

[Representative Emily Carris Duncan (Whitingham)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Equal protection is often an implied right. It's an assumed right. Proposition four gives us the opportunity to make it a solid stated right in the state of Vermont. And as we've heard, it is incredibly important to acknowledge that this is about all Vermonters. This is not special protection for particular groups. This is about all of us. And as we all know here, our freedom is not free. It's something that's worked for. It is something that is fought for, and it's something that deserves our protection. As we witness every day a federal partnership that makes our jobs harder. This is something that will help make Vermont safer.

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

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Arsenault of Williston. Yes.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: 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 electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes in conversation during a roll call. And when the clerk calls your name, answer in a loud and clear voice so the clerk can accurately record your votes. The question is shall the house adopt the constitutional proposal in concurrence? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Austin of Colchester. Bailey of Hyde Park. Bartholomew of Heartland. Yes. Hartley of Fairfax.

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

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Vanusky. Yes. Birong of Vergens. Yes. Bishop of Colchester. Yes. The lack of Essex. Yes. Loomley of Burlington.

[Representative Michael Nigro (Bennington)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Bos-one of Winston.

[Representative Chris Taylor (Mendon)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Bosch of Clarendon. Boonton of Cambridge.

[Representative Michael Nigro (Bennington)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Brady Billiston. Brennan of Georgia. Yes. Bergom of Saint Albans Town. Yes. Brown in Richmond. Yes. Burditt at West Rutland. Burke at Brattleboro.

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

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Burkhardt of South Burlington.

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

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Burrows of West Windsor.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Burditt Cabot. Campbell Saint Johnsbury. Yes. Canfield of Red Haven. Yes. Carris Duncan of Whitingham. Yes. Casey Montpelier.

[Representative Brian Smith (Derby)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Casey Hubbardton. Chapin East Montpelier. Yes. Charlton and Chester. Christie of Hartford? Gina Burlington? Yes. Coffin and Cavendish? Yes. Cole of Hartford?

[Representative Barbara Rachelson (Burlington)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Conlon of Cornwall?

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Cooper Corcoran of Bennington?

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

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Critchlow of Colchester? Yes. Demar of Ennisburg? Yes. Dickinson of Saint Albans

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

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Dovervich of Williamstown? Dodge of Essex. Yes. Dolan of Essex Junction. Yes. Dolgin of Saint Johnsbury. Yes. Donahue of Northfield. Duke of Burlington.

[Representative Michael Nigro (Bennington)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Durfee of Shaftsbury. Eastes of Guilford.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Emmons of Springfield. Yes. Feltus of Linden. Yes. Galfetti Berrytown. Yes. Carifano of Essex. Yes. Woman of Rockingham. Yes. Good job. Branagan.

[Representative Brian Smith (Derby)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Ghostland of Northfield. Yes. Granting Of Jericho. Yes. Breer Bennington. Yes. Aguirre Fairfield.

[Representative Michael Nigro (Bennington)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Hango Brickshear? No. Harper of Glover? Yes. Harvey of Castleton?

[Representative Matthew Birong (Vergennes)]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Hedrick of Burlington?

[Representative Michael Nigro (Bennington)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Higley of Lowell? Holcomb in Norwich?

[Representative Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Essex)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Cooper Randolph.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Houghton of Essex Junction.

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

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Howard Doretland City. Yes. Holland Doretlontown. No. Weidertford. Hunter Manchester. Yes. James Manchester. Yes. Cassandra. Yes. Keyser of Rutland City. Yes. Woodstock. Cutner, Burlington?

[Representative Carol Ode (Burlington)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: We're Heiser, Brattleboro? Yes. Creswell, South Burlington? Yes. Labor Morgan? Yes. Valley Of Shelburne? Malone of South Burlington?

[Representative Brian Smith (Derby)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Lamont of Morristown?

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Loresha Franklin? Yes. Lipsky of Stowe? Yes. Logan of Burlington? Yes. Longanu Fain?

[Representative Michael Nigro (Bennington)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Longan Miltin? Leaders of Lincoln? Yes. Luno of Saint Albans City? Yes. McGuire, Brettlin City? Yes. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, McGuire. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Malay Pittsburgh. Yes. Markot of Coventry. Yes. As in a Thetford. Yes. McKenna Montpelier. McCoy Pulteney.

[Representative Saudia LaMont (Morristown)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: McGillard Burport? Yes. Miclissa Milton? Yes. Mahalia Callis? Yes. Meniere of South Burlington? Yes. Morgan Ela Milton? Yes. Morgan Emma Milton? Yes. Morris of Springfield? Yes. Morris of Bennington? Yes. Mora Westin? Yes. Rokea Putney? Yes. Nelson of Derby? Nielsen of Brandon? Yes. Nigro Bennington. North of Harrisburg. Yes. Moise of Volkitt. Neugen of South Burlington. O'Brien and Tunbridge. Yes. OD Burlington. Yes. Oliver Sheldon. Yes. Olson of Starksboro. Yes. Page in Newport City. Yes. Parsons in Newberry. Pezzo Colchester? Yes. Pinsonault Dorset? Yes. Pasha Hindsburg? Yes. Powers of Waterford? No. Priestley Bradford? Yes. Bridget Burditt

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: Pollack? Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Quinby of London?

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Rachel Dobrovich?

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

[Representative from Ferrisburgh (unidentified)]: Is that

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: what's Randolph? Yes. Shyam Middlebury? Yes. Scully of Burlington? Yes. Sheldon of Middlebury? Cecilia Dover?

[Representative Michael Nigro (Bennington)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Susie of Berrytown? No. Southworth of Walden?

[Representative John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Squirrel of Underhill? Yes. Steady in Milton? Yes. Stevens of Waterbury.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Stone of Burlington. Yes. Sweeney Shelburn.

[Representative John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Taylor Munden. Taylor Mendon. Tom Charlton. Waters Evans and Charlotte. Yes. Wells Of Brownington. Yes. White Wagefield. Yes. White Bethel. Yes. Winter at Ludlow. No. Woodward Waterbury. Yes. Yakavoni, Morristown.

[Representative Brian Smith (Derby)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the Vermont House)]: Burditt at West Rutland. Casey Hubbardton. Christy of Hartford, Donahue Northfield, Quinn Hartford, McKenna Montoya, Mora Weston, Nigro Bennington.

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

[Representative Mollie S. Burke (Brattleboro)]: I vote yes in honor of all the women who fought so hard for this forty years ago and all the decades proceeding in the ambitious hope that the voters of Vermont will join us in affirming equal rights for all.

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

[Representative from Ferrisburgh (unidentified)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I voted yes to ensure that my constituents get to express their vote on this important constitutional amendment. The purpose statement says that this amendment reasserts the principles already reflected in the Vermont constitution chapter one article one and chapter one article seven. And there's no mention of making up for past deficiencies, but focuses us clearly on the future and the present to address existing inequalities, present tense, and to reduce discrimination going forward, future tense, as the bill reporter stated. This is our legislative intent. Thank you, ma'am.

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

[Representative Chris Taylor (Mendon)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I have a lot of words written on my paper, and I'm not going to read it. I believe in my heart, and I'm sorry, the only words that are going to change Vermont and change this world, I believe, come from the Bible, and I think that is what's lacking in the world. True love, peace, how I raise my girls comes from the bible. I teach them to not judge and to love first and to put yourself second. I believe with every ounce of my being in the words of the bible.

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

[Representative Michelle Bos-Lun (Westminster)]: Speaker, may I explain my vote?

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

[Representative Michelle Bos-Lun (Westminster)]: Madam speaker, I don't believe I have ever cast a more important vote, a vote to protect the rights of all Vermonters. I find it unfathomable that anyone in our chamber could vote against a proposition to secure human rights for all who live here.

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

[Representative Angela Arsenault (Williston)]: May I explain my vote?

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

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: I voted yes on proposal four because I believe every Vermonter should have the opportunity to experience the joy and pride that comes from affirming equal rights for all by casting their vote in November.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members, please member from Burlington.

[Representative Carol Ode (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

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

[Representative Carol Ode (Burlington)]: I voted yes because deep in my heart, I do believe we shall overcome someday.

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

[Representative Saudia LaMont (Morristown)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

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

[Representative Saudia LaMont (Morristown)]: From three fifths of a person to a whole person, from women's rights to civil rights. I voted yes to put prop four on the ballot and give her monsters a chance to vote to amend the constitution. We must remember this will not change human behavior. It will not erase hate, violence, or vitriol. It will, however, hopefully ensure that people, especially people who look like me, will be treated with dignity and fairness based on facts and the content of their character, not based on bias, racism, or any other ism that may exist within some people's hearts and minds.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members, please listen. Member from Milton.

[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 voted yes because this vote on the floor body gives all Vermonters the right to decide what they want in their constitution.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members, please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 128. Those voting no, 14. The ayes have it and constitutional proposal is adopted in concurrence. Next up is senate bill two forty three which is an act relating to distributing funds to the Vermont language justice project. The bill was referred to the committee on human services which recommends that the house proposed to the senate to amend the bill as printed in today's calendar. The member from Essex, representative Garifano will speak for the committee. Could the house please come to order? And then carrying an appropriation, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations which recommended that the report of the committee on human services be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Linden, representative Feltus will speak for that committee. And then it is my understanding that the member from Linden will be asking leave of the house to withdraw the report of the committee on appropriations. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: S two forty three, an act relating to distributing funds to the Vermont Language Justice Project.

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

[Representative Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Essex)]: Madam speaker, the Vermont Language Justice Project was founded in 2020 at the onset of the COVID nineteen pandemic to address a critical gap in access to public health information for Vermonters who speak languages other than English. Since its founding, the Vermont Language Justice Project has grown into a statewide network of more than a 100 community partners, producing over 250 multilingual public service videos in up to 22 languages, including ASL. Their videos have been viewed more than 227,000 times and distributed through schools, healthcare providers, refugee and immigrant networks, WhatsApp groups, robocall systems, and community organizations across Vermont. The organization has demonstrated the ability to rapidly deliver culturally and linguistically accessible information during emergencies often within twenty four hours, helping ensure immigrant refugee and limited English speaking Vermonters access critical public health and safety information. As Vermont's immigrant and refugee communities continue to grow, S243 ensures continued access to these critical language justice service services for Vermonters who speak languages other than English. The amendment found on page 2,700 of today's calendar reflects a practical approach to meeting this need. Section one includes findings that recognize Vermont's commitment to refugees and import and the important role immigrants and refugees play in our economy. It also highlights the critical role the Vermont Language Justice Project plays in ensuring all Vermonters have access to vital health and emergency information. Recognizing that there is that there is existing funding available within the office of racial equity in the state of Vermont, the house amendment removes the senate appropriation and leverages existing systems and funding to ensure this critical work continues. Section two establishes a pathway for state agencies to continue accessing the services of the Vermont Language Justice Project through the Office of Racial Equity. I will be offering an amendment on this section after you hear from your Appropriations Committee. Your Committee on Human Services heard from the sponsor of the bill, legislative council, office of legislative council, director of Vermont Language Justice Project, director of health equity, department of health, deputy director, department of health, director, division of emergency management, department of public safety, administrative and project coordinator, office of racial equity, executive director, office of racial equity, executive director, hunger free Vermont. The bill will take effect on 07/01/2026, and your committee vote was seven zero four in support of the bill. Your committee on human services respectfully request your support.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Linden.

[Representative Martha Feltus (Lyndon)]: Yes, madam speaker. The House Appropriation Committee asked leave of the house to withdraw the amendment that you see on page two seven zero one. And we came to that decision on the straw poll of ten zero one. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Absent objection, leave is granted. Now the member from Essex offers an amendment to the report of the committee on human services that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Essex.

[Representative Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Essex)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm offering an amendment to section two of s two forty three. These changes can be found on page twenty seven zero two of today's calendar. The amendment proposes several technical changes to clarify this process and ensure compliance with state contract and requirements. Because the Office of Racial Equity will contract with the Vermont Language Justice Project as needed, the amendment changes the language from shall contract to may contract. The amendment also directs the Department of Buildings and General Services to assist Vermont Language Justice Project in navigating the process to become an approved state contractor. In addition, it removes a specific reference to the division of emergency management because once Vermont Language Project becomes an approved state contractor, any state agency would be able to access their services through the Office of Racial Equity. These changes are intended to ensure that the Vermont Language Justice Project can meet all state contracting requirements while continuing to provide critical language access services to Vermonters. The amendment also ensures that the Department of Health along with other state agencies will continue to have access to Vermont Language Justice Project's multilingual communication and emergency outreach services when needed. Your Human Services Committee approved the amendment on the straw poll of eight zero three, and we ask for your support.

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

[Representative Martha Feltus (Lyndon)]: Excuse me. The House Appropriations Committee heard the amendment from the Human Services Committee and we approve that on a vote of ten zero one. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: So the question is, shall the report of the committee on human services be amended as offered by the member from Essex? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have amended the report of the committee on human services. Now the question is shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on human services as amended. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do 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. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Next is House Bill five thirty six which is an act relating to toxic heavy metals in baby food products. The bill passed the senate in concurrence with a proposal of amendment that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Derby.

[Representative Brian Smith (Derby)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'd like to take this time to report to the body. If you remember when I presented this bill way back in the days of a lot of snow, We talked about Operation Stork Speed, and that was the federal government's way of looking into baby formula and testing to make sure that it was free or tolerances for toxic heavy metals. And the report has since came out while the Senate had this bill and really, really, really good work done. And our baby formulas essentially are safe. So that's great news and we can all rest a little easier. So Senate Health and Welfare had this bill and they did some great work on it and I want to thank them or our committee would like to thank them for the subtle changes they made to make a great bill a little bit better. And the changes were, and this bill's on page 2,702. They put some safety measures in there for a decline in supply. So why this goes into effect if we notice that our infant formulas and the changes are all the infant formula side, by the way. If we have declining supplies of infant formula, they can waive rules to so we don't run out. They also put in nothing in this section shall be construed to conflict with federal law. In in things like baby formula or food or or the the the herbicides I use, there's rules about labeling and what can be on a label and where can be on a label. And they all have to be okayed by FDA or USDA or food and drug yeah. That's FDA or FIFRA or whatnot. So we have to give them time to allow these labeling changes to happen. This shall not restrict the continued sale of infant formula in stock prior to the effective date. So, you know, all the stores are stocked up in infant formula. They got stock in their warehouses. They can continue to roll this out as they make the changes. And if you'll remember with the infant formula, we tied it into either the state of California passing their law or two other states, And then Vermont would would go ahead. Although, we're the first, kinda. They the senate put in there that will not take effect until the the law takes effect in California or two other states. So when their law goes into effect, our law goes into effect. We heard we we heard from ledge counsel and the office of legislative counsel. We heard from industry reps. We had the chair of senate health and welfare came up and talked to us about it, and we went over it. And the deputy attorney general came in and spoke to us and assured us that this bill was solid. So on a straw poll vote of seven zero one, we concur with the senate, and we ask the body to support it as well. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question, member from Georgia?

[Representative Angela Arsenault (Williston)]: Thanks, madam speaker. I wanna, thank the agriculture committee for, using this careful scientific examination, of these results that came to the to them. They didn't just take it for granted. They looked at it using their own backgrounds and information that gives me a lot of confidence in their recommendations. So I want you to know that I plan to vote yes on this as I hope the rest of the chamber will as well.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the house concur in the senate 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 concurred in the senate proposal of amendment. Up next is house bill six forty eight which is an act relating to banking insurance and securities. Member from Starksboro.

[Representative Michael Nigro (Bennington)]: Madam speaker, I move that we postpone action on h, six forty eight for one legislative day.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Starksboro moves that we postpone action on House Bill six forty eight for one legislative day. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have postponed action on House Bill six forty eight. Next is House Bill six thirty nine which is an act relating to genetic data privacy. Member from Starksboro.

[Representative Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: Madam speaker, I move that we postpone action on H six thirty nine for one legislative day.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Starksboro moves that we postpone action on house bill six thirty nine for one legislative day. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have postponed action on House Bill six thirty nine until tomorrow. Next is House Bill seven thirty nine which is an act relating to prohibiting the use and sale of the herbicide paraquat. The bill passed the Senate in concurrence with a proposal of amendment that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Tunbridge.

[Representative John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. H739, if you remember it's an act relating to prohibiting the use and sale of the herbicide Paraquat. It passed out of house ag on a vote of eight zero zero, came here, passed on a voice vote unanimously and then in its journey went over to the senate ag. Senate ag did some good work on it. There are four substantive changes they made. First, they axed the findings, the senate doesn't seem like findings so they got rid of those but that's okay with us. The bill was six pages and now it's three pages. Less for the green books. One thing that came up, remember when it was reported here, we understood that paracot was being used as a pre emergent herbicide on in in apple orchards on fruit trees to kill weeds around the base of nursery trees. Well, it turned out it's also used in Vermont by some berry growers, strawberries specifically and the senate had some witnesses in and because of what they heard, they wanted to include our strawberry farmers as farmers who with the right permitting, with approved permitting could use Paraquat in very limited ways. The third, the Agricultural Innovation Board was tasked with finding alternatives for the use of Paraquat in a study and reporting back to the agricultural committees. This study group was also shown the door and we felt that was fine too given that it can still happen. It just doesn't have to happen with legislatively approved statutes. And last, had a November, the ban would go into effect 11/01/2030 and the Senate ag committee moved it to 12/31/2030, just one month later or a little bit more than one month later just to coincide with a calendar year. So we appreciate the senate agriculture's thoughtful edits and their overall support of this phase out to a ban on Paraquat in Vermont. And for that reason, the house committee on agriculture, food resiliency, and forestry concurred with the senate proposal of amendment and by a straw poll vote of six to zero and we would appreciate this body supporting this bill. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the house concur in the senate 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 concurred in the senate proposal of amendment. Up next is house bill nine fifty two which is an act relating to capital construction and state bonding budget adjustment. The bill passed the senate in concurrence with the proposal of amendment that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Springfield.

[Representative Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: Madam speaker, the other body has made some changes to our capital bill. A lot of it dealt with the money. They moved a lot of the money around in certain projects, particularly in the Department of Corrections. They cut some funding that we had for Wi Fi in the Department of Corrections. And also, they changed some money around for the three acre parcel. And they also added some policy language in the back of the bill that dealt with stormwater utility that we need to do some work on. So, madam speaker, your committee on house corrections institutions on a vote straw vote of ten zero one. Move that we not concur with the senate proposal of amendment and set up a conference committee.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Springfield 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 Springfield, representative Emmons, the member from Bennington, representative Morrissey, and the member from South Burlington, representative Meniere. Member from Pulteney, due to the time sensitive nature of this bill, can you please offer us a motion to suspend our rules to message our action on house bill nine fifty two to the senate forthwith?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to message our actions on h nine five two to the senate forthwith.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Hultney moves that we suspend our rules to message our action on house bill nine fifty two to the senate forthwith. Are you ready for the question?

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: If

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: 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 suspended rules to message our action on House Bill nine fifty two to the Senate forthwith. Members at this time we are going to take a brief recess to ensure that S212 is ready or find out if it's not ready. So the house will stand in recess until the fall of the gavel approximately ten minutes.