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. Members we are returning after recess and so we are in orders of the day. Our current, plan for the calendar is to start at the top with '2 2008 and work down the calendar picking up and voting on what we did not get through this morning. If that changes, I will let you know but that is the plan. So members at this time we'll take up Senate Bill two zero eight which is an act relating to standards for law enforcement identification. 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 Essex Junction, representative Dolan will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk]: S two zero eight, an act relating to standards for law enforcement identification.

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

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: Madam Speaker, S two zero eight as amended by your House Judiciary Committee takes a measured approach to advancing transparency and public trust in Vermont law enforcement interactions. At a time of increased public concern about the use of masks and identification, the bill establishes a path for toward more consistent practice across the state. The house amendment maintains the bill's original purpose but shifts from detailed statutory mandates applying to all law enforcement working in Vermont to a statewide model policy framework focused on the practices of state and local agencies. This change was informed by an April 22 decision of the ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in Index Newspapers LLC versus United States Marshals Service, which highlighted constitutional limits on state regulation of federal law enforcement, particularly regarding identification and operational practices. That decision underscored the complexity of applying state requirements to federal officers and the risk of further preemption challenges. Based on that case

[Representative Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Barre City)]: and There are

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: no no signs allowed, please. Will the house please come to order? Member from Essex Junction.

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: I'm not exactly certain where I ended, so I may repeat a sentence. That decision underscored the complexity of applying state requirements to federal officers and the risk of further preemption challenges. Based on that case and guidance from legislative council, there was concern the original version of s two zero eight would likely be found unconstitutional. A legal challenge at that level could strain state resources that are better used defining defending other initiatives that this body has advanced, such as our constitutional accountability act h eight forty nine. In response, the committee focused the bill on Vermont state and local law enforcement and moved to a model policy approach. S two zero eight directs the law enforcement advisory board to develop clear, consistent standards for officer identification and the use of facial coverings and requires all agencies to adopt those standards on a defined timeline. This approach mirrors prior legislative efforts on fair and impartial policing, use of force, and body camera policies. S two zero eight addresses transparency, accountability, and public trust by providing clarity around officer identification and the use of facial coverings during public encounters. I will now turn to the sections of the bill. For those following along, the strike all amendment can be found on page three two six one of today's house calendar. Section one contains three subsections. Subsection a defines key terms. Facial covering is defined as any opaque item that obscures facial identity. Law enforcement agency and law enforcement officer use existing statutory definitions in 20 VSA twenty three fifty one a. Subsection b requires the law enforcement advisory board to develop a model statewide policy addressing identification standards and the use of facial coverings to be completed by July 2027 and to ensure consistent statewide application. Subsection c requires all Vermont law enforcement agencies to adopt a policy consistent with the model by 10/01/2027. If an agency or an officer not employed by an agency does not adopt a policy, they are deemed to have adopted the the model policy. Section two provides that the act takes effect upon passage. The committee heard testimony from the following. The director of the civil rights unit at the office of the attorney general, legislative council, the advocacy director of ACLU of Vermont, the executive director of Vermont Criminal Justice Council, professor for Columbia Law School, national trustee of Chittenden County Fraternal Order of Police, President of Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police, a sergeant at the Rutland County Sheriff's Criminal Division, commander of Vermont State Police, commissioner Department of Public Safety, and a commander of Internet Crimes Against children task force. This amended version of s two zero eight, as outlined, addresses transparency, accountability, and public trust in law enforcement interactions, specifically requiring clarity around officer identification and the use of facial coverings during public encounters. S two zero eight as amended passed out favorably on a vote of six five zero, and your committee on judiciary respectfully request your support.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: And now the member from Winooski, representative Berbeco, and the member from Bridport, representative Miguel, offer an amendment to the report of the committee on judiciary that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Winooski.

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Madam speaker, I speak today as a member of one of Vermont's most incredible communities, one of the communities in Vermont that's feeling this issue most deeply. Because in Winooski, immigrant families are our neighbors. Their families sorry. Let me just turn off my fan here. In Winooski, immigrant families are our neighbors. They're teenagers, watch our kids. Their middle schoolers are traveling to Washington to represent our entire state in national poetry and academic competitions. They're building thriving businesses, raising productive families with Vermont values, and they're shaping the future of our state. They're Vermont, and our local police officers of Vermont also. We have a small police department in Winooski. We know our officers by their first names. They've watched our kids grow up, and some Winooski kids became officers. They respond when there's a fender bender or a lost bike or when a family is in crisis. They're not outsiders. They're part of the fabric of our community and that relationship matters. Public trust matters and that's exactly why I'm bringing this amendment forward to give you the opportunity to vote yes. I'm not anti law enforcement and this is not about punishing officers. This amendment will not stop federal agents from carrying out their duties even if I may disagree with what they do. Much of the language in this amendment was shaped with input from the Department of Public Safety and it includes important exemptions for undercover operations, tactical teams, protective equipment, hazardous conditions, and real safety concerns. I'm offering this amendment because I want you to have a choice to make sure that in Vermont, when armed individuals are exercising law enforcement power over members of the public with your tax dollars, we know who they are. That should not be controversial. And I want to address a key concern for some people about this issue and that's constitutionality. Respectfully, you're not elected to act as a constitutional scholar any more than I, as vice chair of house health care, was elected to decide the correct surgical technique in an Operating Room. Courts determine constitutionality, we should let them do that here. Our role is to reflect the will of our voters as they will soon remind us. And what I've learned is that the legality of mass federal enforcement actions is currently being disputed and is yet unresolved. It is up for debate. My constituents would like to weigh in. I wanna ask something much more human. If masked, unidentified, armed men entered your neighborhood tonight, forcefully entered homes, detained people, and your local police had zero warning and no way to immediately verify who they were, would your first instinct be to say, well, it's constitutional? Or would your first instinct be terror? Because that's what people in Winooski are experiencing all over in Vermont, actually, not just in Chittenden, but even on our farms. And I don't think that that's right. I don't think I have to tell you that. But if you can't say it, I will. That's why Winooski elected me. And I'll tell you what, local law enforcement officers are experiencing this too. I've been talking with them since last summer when detentions were quietly happening in Essex, South Burlington, and Burlington. And I have yet to speak with local Vermont law enforcement officer who thinks that unidentified masked federal agents operating without coordination strengthens our public safety in Vermont. I've asked them, and what I hear instead is frustration, stress, and fear of confusion leading to the next national tragedy. Our local officers are being put in impossible situations right now. They're trying to decide in real time whether do they're dealing with actual federal agents or impersonators. There's no coordination and no heads up, and there's no data sharing to confirm anything afterward. That's dangerous for the public because anyone can mask up and pretend to be a federal agent. It's dangerous for law enforcement. If they're if they are not to impede federal operations, they need to know that they're doing the correct thing. They do not need to lose public trust right now. So I'm giving you the chance to protect your community and protect your officers by reinforcing the most basic principle of public safety accountability. I don't think that that's a partisan issue. This transcends party. And I thought a lot about it over the weekend, and I feel like this vote is really about freedom because it's about trust, and it's about whether Vermonters can identify the people that get to exercise total authority over them. Authority even over your local law enforcement officers. So this is about whether we vote to allow anonymity to erode the relationship between Vermont communities and law enforcement. This is one of the moments that you're gonna be called to reflect upon often. And I know I sound dramatic, but I really feel like this is a rare moment in our country when people are really watching to see how we react. Division's growing, and people are watching to see whether we're gonna ask for basic accountability and public safety because we actually value that here in our brave little state. Even when we disagree here in Vermont, we still cherish community, and we still know people should feel safe in their homes. But remember that public trust in us as change makers, people in power matters immensely to the functioning of this government. Every single one of us sits in this chamber because our neighbors, including law enforcement officers, elected us. They trusted us. So to wrap up, when your constituents, including your police officers, go home tonight and they read about your vote, do they wanna see that you prevented masked, armed, unidentified people from forcefully entering homes in their communities? I think they do.

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

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: Madam speaker, we were able to listen to the sponsor of the amendment and hear their reasoning for why it should move forward, and we really appreciate the concerns that they brought up. Your house judiciary reviewed the amendment and found it unfavorable on a vote of eight to one. While the language of the amendment mirrors language in previous versions of s two zero eight that house judiciary previously considered, the majority of the committee agreed that the reintroduced language remains likely to be found unconstitutional and could therefore jeopardize not only the integrity of the bill, but risk the bill crossing the finish line and establishing a model policy for masking and identification for state and local law enforcement in Vermont. For these reasons, we ask the body to vote no on this amendment.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the report of the committee on judiciary be amended as offered by the member from Winooski and the member from Bridport, member from South Burlington no. From Montpelier.

[Representative Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Madam speaker, first, I wanna thank the members of the judiciary committee for their hard work on this bill. I I really mean that. They took seriously the constitutional questions raised by the recent California decision, and they tried to anticipate any legal challenges. I respect that work. But Vermont has never required absolute certainty from our courts before acting on questions of civil liberties, accountability, and public trust. If this body had waited for every constitutional question to be fully settled before acting, we never would have led on civil unions. We never would have led on death with dignity. Almost every consequential thing this body is remembered for faced legal uncertainty when we passed it. We acted because we believe something was right and this moment calls for that same courage. Vermonters are deeply disturbed by what they're seeing across this country. They've watched master agents detain people without visible identification and operate in ways that erode public trust, in law enforcement itself. And, yes, we've even seen instances here in Vermont that alarmed our constituents as well. Public authority in a democracy should never be anonymous. We are a separate branch of government. Our responsibility is to craft legislation that reflects our values. We cannot call ourselves a brave little state while retreating from difficult issues because litigation may follow. And I worry this debate is drifted far from the original purpose of this legislation. The original intent was to address address anonymous federal enforcement activity and federal overreach, and we need to do that today. Other states are not retreating. There are only three states in the second circuit, Connecticut, New York, and Vermont. Connecticut has already acted. The ink is barely dry on that legislation. New York is moving towards that direction as well. And if Vermont backs out now, we will be the outlier. Connecticut attorney general William Tong said after the passage of the law, this law may be challenged. And when it is, if it is, I will be waiting and Connecticut will win. Governor of California when threatened said, I don't take well the threats. We're gonna pass what we think is important to protect New Yorkers. That's leadership. That's leadership we should emulate. And if this issue is challenged in the circuit court, and I suspect it will be, Vermont should stand with the states defending transparency, accountability, and public trust. We were sent here to lead. So today, I urge the members of this body, support the amendment, put federal agents back into this bill, and let Vermont stand for the principle that public authority in a democracy should never be anonymous. Because if we remove the federal provisions now out of fear of what may happen in court someday, then we are surrendering this fight before it even begins. The storm's coming, madam speaker. We've done good work, but we have miles to go, and Vermont has never been at its best when it waits for permission to lead. We were sent here to fight. We should do it.

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

[Representative Jubilee McGill (Bridport)]: Thank you. Madam speaker, I cosponsored this amendment because I believe this body still has an opportunity to affirm a pretty simple democratic principle. People exercising law enforcement power in our community should not do so anonymously.

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: I have

[Representative Jubilee McGill (Bridport)]: to say I rise today with disappointment, not anger at my colleagues, not a belief that people have acted in bad faith. I know members of this body have wrestled sincerely with difficult constitutional questions and have tried to navigate complicated legal terrain responsibly. I respect that deeply. But after meeting with lawyers both here in Vermont and across the country, reviewing additional legal analysis and reflecting on what this bill is fundamentally about, I have come to believe that removing federal officers from this legislation was the wrong decision for Vermont. This bill is not about politics or whether one supports or opposes law enforcement. It is about whether we still believe that government power in a democracy must remain visible, identifiable, and accountable to the public. When someone has the authority to stop you, detain you, search you, use force against you, separate your family, or deprive you of your liberty, the public has a right to know that power is being exercised openly and not from behind anonymity. That should not be con controversial in a free society. This amendment does not prevent law enforcement from doing their jobs. Officers can still investigate crimes, execute warrants, make arrests, and protect public safety. The question before us is whether armed agents of the government should be permitted to conceal their identities from the public while exercising extraordinary power in our communities. And madam speaker, I think we should be honest about why this moment feels so important to many Vermonters. Across this country, people are with witnessing increasingly aggressive enforcement actions carried out by unidentified officers behind masks, tactical gear, and concealed faces. Families do not know who is stopping them. Witnesses do not know who used force. Community members cannot identify what agency has taken their loved one away. People are scared, and frankly, they have reason to be. Because if we witnessed unidentified mass government agents detaining people in the streets in another country, many of us would immediately recognize it as authoritarianism. We would call it a warning sign of democratic erosion without hesitation. Why? Because deep down people understand fundamentally that in a democracy, state power is supposed to remain accountable to the public. Democracy requires transparency. Public trust requires accountability. And accountability becomes impossible when offers officers are allowed to operate anonymously. When an officer cannot be identified, every mechanism of democratic oversight begins to collapse. And what troubles me most is that this exact moment when communities across this country are pleading for transparency, accountability, and reassurance that democratic norms still matter, Vermont is considering stepping away from an opportunity to affirm those principles clearly and unapologetically. That is profoundly disappointing to me. Now I also want to address the legal concerns that have been raised around this bill. There has been significant discussion about the recent ninth circuit ruling out of California, As though that case somehow settles this question once and for all, it does not. That ruling came from another federal circuit on the other side of the country. It is not binding on Vermont courts. It was not a final ruling on the merits and importantly, it applied a legal framework that the second circuit, the circuit Vermont belongs to, has not adopted. Legal scholars disagree on these questions. Federal courts disagree on these questions. There is no settled national consensus here, and I believe Vermonters are worth the fight. There's also another critically important fact. There is currently no federal law policy or directive requiring officers to wear masks. Vermont is not attempting to prevent law enforcement from carrying out legitimate operations. Vermont is simply saying that when government agents exercise their power over the public, they should not do so anonymously except in narrow and legitimate circumstances. That is basic democratic accountability, and I worry deeply about the precedent we set if we begin retreating from fundamental democratic principles simply because litigation is possible. Every major civil civil rights advancement in this country faced legal challenges. If lawmakers had always waited for absolute legal certainty before acting, many of the rights and protections we now take for granted would never have existed. Our responsibility here is not simply to predict what future courts may or may not do. Our responsibility is to lead with moral clarity, to defend democratic values, and to protect public trust even when it's hard. Vermonters are watching closely right now. They are watching fears spread through immigrant communities and communities of color. They are watching anonymous enforcement actions across this country and they are watching us, wondering whether transparency, accountability, and democratic norms still matter enough for us to stand up and defend them. I believe they do and I believe history will judge how willing we were to defend those principles when they became uncomfortable or politically difficult. I believe I brought this amendment because I do not believe anyone exercising law enforcement power in our communities should do so anonymously. Not state officers, not local officers, and not federal officers. I urge the body to join us and support the amendment.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on judiciary be amended as offered by the member from Winooski and the member from Bridport, a member from Norwich.

[Representative Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wanna first thank the committee on judiciary and the sponsors of the bill because I know how deeply and sincerely they have worked to protect the rights of our fellow Vermonters. I grew up in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that experience is how shapes how I see this bill and the current moment. My family knew people who were taken from public places by unidentified men and never seen again. We knew journalists who disappeared after criticizing the government. A dear friend of my mother packed her children into metal trunks and put them on a truck over the Salang Pass to get them to safety. And in a place captured by fear, I learned something dangerous. I learned that when power is anonymous, the line between law enforcement, political intimidation, and vigilantism can become very, very thin. When you grow up in other places, you also learn your own country differently. What I came to understand was that one of the greatest privileges of being an American citizen was freedom from fear. It was the belief that government power should not hide its face. It was the belief that due process matters and that criticism of public officials is not treason. It's the belief that people can disagree openly without fear of retaliation. And as one of my family members, a former state trooper and a prosecutor told me this weekend, professional law enforcement depends on public trust and disciplined standards within its own ranks. Public trust is not a barrier to effective law enforcement at any level. It is part of what makes legitimate law enforcement possible, and that is the tradition this bill is trying to protect. We are trying to balance our state's imperative to protect our people without interfering with the legitimate execution of federal objectives. Vermont has faced this moment before, and I'm gonna steal a a lesson or a a role from one of my colleagues who likes to give history lessons on the floor. In 1850, congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act. That law required the return of escaped enslaved people and authorized federal officials to compel assistance from citizens. Vermonters were told that if federal offer officers came into our communities, our role was simply to comply. And at that time, Vermont did not say, the constitutional questions are unsettled so we should do nothing. Instead, this state passed personal liberty laws because it knows that there is no freedom without unity behind human dignity. Our predecessors in these seats, right here in this house, strengthened habeas corpus protections and required accountability and process because Vermonters understood that when we protect human dignity, civil liberties, due process for some people, we are strengthening those protections for all of us. Opponents argued at the time that Vermont was entering uncertain constitutional territory, and they were partly right. The legality was contested. The line between state authority and federal power was not fully clear, but Vermont chose to act not out of lawlessness but out of constitutional conscience, and this bill amendment stands in that same American tradition. It does not prohibit lawful federal enforcement. It does not prevent tactical operations, undercover work, or officer safety protections. In fact, the bill contains broad operational exceptions precisely because our drafters took those concerns so seriously. What this bill does say is simple. When armed agents of the government interact directly with the public, the public should know who they are, and this debate is not occurring in a vacuum. In recent days at the national level, journalists and public figures have spoken openly over their concerns about retaliation for news reporting or speaking on matters of public concerns. Whether one agrees with those concerns or not, this is precisely when constitutional guardrails matter most because anonymity combined with state power carries profound risk. The Vermonters who resisted the Fugitive Slave Act were not protecting only escaped slaves. They were defending the principle that government power must remain accountable to the public and constrained by law, and that principle still matters. Even when constitutional boundaries are not perfectly settled, there are moments when states are called to lead carefully, thoughtfully, and courageously. I believe this is one of those moments, and I will be voting yes.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on judiciary be amended as offered by the member from Winooski and the member from Bridgeport, member from Barrie City?

[Representative Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Barre City)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I unfortunately believe today that we are at the tip of the iceberg. This is not just a question of masked federal agents in our communities abducting children, murdering American citizens, orphaning children, and doing all of that while hiding behind a mask. What we are faced with today is a hostile federal government led by a president of The United States who, in his first and now second term, has expressed and shown blatant disregard for the rule of law and for the weaponization of the federal government, as the member just pointed out, against the freedom of the press, against our immigrant communities, against women, against LGBTQIA individuals, and he has done so for political gain, to exercise his power, and simply because he decides he does not like them. He's doing this through weaponizing the IRS, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security.

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

[Representative Thomas Burditt (West Rutland)]: I believe that the the member is off topic from what we're talking about and mainly talking about the administration in Washington.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the house please stand in recess? Can I see the members at the podium, please? Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Member from West Rutland, I find your point of order not well taken. Federal authority is relevant, to this to the question at hand. Member from Barrie City.

[Representative Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Barre City)]: Thank you, madam speaker. From the IRS to the Department of Justice to the Department of Homeland Security and specifically through immigration and customs enforcement, the federal government is using its great power to engage in Gestapo tactics, murdering American citizens, kidnapping children, and doing all of this through total anonymity. For a long time, this was a theoretical exercise here in Vermont. What if this happens here? But over the past year, this has become all too real in Vermont as we've already heard examples of today. On the constitutionality questions, let's remember that we have three coequal branches of government. As the general assembly and as specifically the house of representatives, it is our prerogative to advance bills that our constituents are asking for and that we think benefit the broad population of our citizens. It is the court's prerogative to interpret the constitution. Bans on interracial marriage, restrictions on reproductive justice, and even slavery, as we just heard about, were once considered to be constitutional until individuals, until state legislatures, and until communities stood up for what they thought is right. They pushed the envelope. They had the courage to do what was the right thing, and they changed this country for the better. Let's do the same here today. Let's unmask ICE. Let's not allow a radical supreme court and a radical federal administration to take away our fight. Let's take a stand and meet the moment. Let's vote yes on this amendment, and let's not get bogged down in procedure as we are so often want to do, but because it's once again time to push that envelope and to do what is right. When we talk about uncertain constitutionality, I think we could be here for the rest of the summer talking about actions over the past ten years that have had questionable constitutionality. Let's accept that we are living in uncertain times. Let's accept that the constitution is a living, breathing document that must be changed and that must be challenged as the country changes and as the country is challenged. Vote yes today and get caught fighting for our immigrant neighbors. This is one of the many times that we will be asked to take a stand, and it's vital that we show to our communities when we go home and say we're doing everything we can to help you. We're doing everything we can to protect you. Let's vote today and mean that promise. And that's what I'm going to take back to Barrie City, and that's what I ask you all to do today.

[House Clerk]: Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on judiciary be amended as offered by the member from Inusky and the member from Bridport member from Newberry.

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Hearing the dangers of anonymity and importance of transparency, I would request that we take the, vote by roll, please.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Newberry request when the vote is taken, it be taken by roll. Is the member sustained? The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. Member from Burlington.

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise to support this amendment. My constituents asked me why would Vermont not take every reasonable action we can to prohibit secret police in our state. They wanna know why California, Washington State, New Jersey, and more recently, Connecticut adopted a law to require federal, state, and local law enforcement to be unmasked and to have visible identification. Clear and visible identification for law enforcement is not a cosmetic detail. It is a cornerstone of democratic policing. Even New York is on the brink of enacting this policy. Yes. We have heard about the ninth circuit court, but it is not unheard of for circuit courts to disagree. One lower court only means so much. In house judiciary, we heard from two legal experts in our committee and they disagreed. Even the expert who disagreed that we could pass this law and that it would be found unconstitutional made clear he could not be sure. We can have all the experts we want in, and they will differ on what the court should say. But that's the point. The US Supreme Court has not yet said. They and other lawyers I've talked to were clear that the issue is unsettled. It's not clearly unconstitutional. Madam speaker, may I read from the 04/20/2026 state court report article, can states ban federal officers from wearing masks?

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

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Thank you. The district court for the Central District of California, the only court to consider this issue so far, has rejected the government's contention that the ban amounts to regulation. The court found California's mask ban to be analogous to traffic laws that in a similar sense dictate how a federal officer may operate a vehicle on state roads, but are nonetheless enforceable against federal officers. The court made this determination because it found the DOJ had not shown that its current practices with respect to masking and identification are essential to federal law enforcement operations. The federal court, the court concluded the federal government, the court concluded, had not yet adequately explained how discretionary masking and identification policies are essential to the operations or safety of federal law enforcement. The court disagreed that masks were required for safety reasons. The security concern raised by the government exists for federal law enforcement officers with and without masks, the court said. Indeed, the presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all. And the court noted that the alleged harms are the result of criminal behavior. The state's mask ban does not facilitate or enable criminals to harm law enforcement officers, and doxing an assault will continue to be illegal even if the ban is in place. Other courts may come to

[Representative Michael Morgan (Milton)]: the same

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: conclusion. There's no evidence that masking reduces the likelihood of assault nor does it appear that ICE officials today face an increased risk of assault in past years. In fact, according to the Cato Institute, 2025 was the second safest year for border patrol and ICE agents based on the available data, safer than any year since 2015. More moreover, the government has not offered any public data on the extent to which ICE agents are in fact being subjected to doxing and whether masking reduces the risk. But the California court noted the historical tradition of law enforcement officers not masking their identities and the current practice of some federal officers who chose who choose to expose their identity alongside colleagues with masks undermine the DOJ's argument that masking was necessary for this reason. This point echoes what constitutional scholar Erwin Cheminsky pointed out in his defense of California's mask ban. Quote, ICE agents have never before worn masks when apprehending people, and that has never posed a problem, nor have other officers of local, state, and federal law enforcement face dangers from public because they don't wear masks in the streets. Similarly, not masking does not prohibit ICE from doing any aspect of their jobs. It just prohibits them from concealing their identities while they do it. There's no obvious right legal answer to this question. The case law is murky. A lot of the relevant precedents are decades or even centuries old, and this scenario raises new and novel legal considerations. The Federal District Court in California issued its preliminary ruling, but that ruling is not binding on other federal district courts. In other words, the doctrine is still unsettled and is likely to arise again in trial courts, appellate courts, and eventually the supreme court. But for now, mask bans stand up fighting chance against supremacy for supremacy clause and intergovernmental immunity challenges. Madam speaker, I am not willing to look my constituents in the eye and tell them that I did nothing to protect them from ICE, that I rolled over prematurely. This amendment is not anti law enforcement. It's anti secret police, and I urge you to join me in voting yes.

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

[Representative Mary-Katherine Stone (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I was one of the lead sponsors of the house bill, which is mirrored in 02/2008, which included a prohibition on federal law enforcements being masked and unidentified when they conduct law enforcement activities. The reasons for that were simple. Abduction of Vermont citizens by masked, unidentified, armed people is simply inconsistent with a free society. Then the Ninth Circuit Court issued its ruling, and I thought, well, we're gonna have to find another way to protect Vermonters. The chair of your house judiciary committee, the member from Brattleboro, and an outside constitutional expert all reviewed the Ninth Circuit's opinion and found it to be sound legal reasoning unlikely to be overturned. Then there were the issues of procedurally. If we add masking back, there is no guarantee that the senate will take it up or will pass it. If they do, there's no guarantee the governor will allow it to become law. If he does, our second circuit could well strike it down. And if they don't, the supreme court could well strike it down. And for a moment, I was swayed by all of those possibilities. But they are just possibilities. And on the other side of the balance, yes, the bill might flounder somewhere between here and becoming law. Yes, it may get struck down by one of the courts. But those are just possibilities. On the other side, when I look deep in my heart, there is a moral imperative to protect Vermonters from abduction by masked unidentified armed people. And therefore, I will be voting yes to support this amendment, and I urge my fellow members to join me in doing so.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on judiciary be amended as offered by the member from Winooski and the member from Bridgeport, member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. Just want to make a brief comment because I think the points on substantive law and why we should do this have have been made. I just want to go back or ask all members to go back to that time not all that long ago when we first saw pictures of masked federal officers. Obviously, there were probably a lot of reactions but I think there was a strong overwhelming reaction. For me anyway, it was a gut punch. Those first pictures. Anything that came before and anything that came after to me was never as strong as that gut punch of seeing federal officers in masks. Even our governor spoken strong words about that moment in time And, madam speaker, I think people should reflect on why they felt that way and why that would not lead them to say, we need to do this today. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on judiciary be amended as offered by the member from Branuski and the member from Bridport, member from South Burlington?

[Representative Kate Nugent (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I am voting no on this amendment because I do not believe that two wrongs make a right. I do not believe that if one branch of government ignores a part of the constitution that the right response is to do the same in another direction. I believe that we stand up for the constitution and that decision making process that protects our rights.

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

[Representative Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, something you don't know about me is that I have spent four years trying to track when and how we use this fear of litigation to guide our decisions in this room. And I don't have I don't have an answer. It's I I haven't been able to figure out what that pattern is. I can't say I have never quite understood why we let fear of litigation dictate our approach in this room to values based legislation because that's pretty much how this is supposed to work as has been mentioned. Legislatures passed laws grounded in public values and constitutional interpretation that involves through challenge, review, and clarification over time. If previous legislatures had waited for guaranteed judicial certainty before acting, many of the protections, as have been mentioned, we now take for granted would never have existed. Environmental protections face litigation. Labor protections continue to face litigation. Public transparency laws face litigation. Disability rights legislation has faced litigation. And as I was putting together these examples, this next one kind of initiated this weird flashback that I'll talk about here in a second. One of the clearest examples of this legislation that then faced litigation is California's emission standards. For years, California moved forward with stronger environmental standards despite repeated lawsuits, federal pushback, and claims that the state was overstepping its authority. They acted because they believed protecting public health and the environment reflected the values of their state, their people, their constituents. Eventually, of those standards not only survived, but then influenced national policy. Here's the flashback. Bear with me. I can remember as a I'm of that age when I stayed home as a kid from school. It was pre streaming, it was pre cable TV, so I was stuck watching daytime television, and that included The Price is Right. There's probably some members in the room that shared those sorts of experiences with me. And I can remember at least one time per show, the announcer would come on and the curtain would open and you've got a brand new car and they would describe the car with its AMFM radio and its California emissions. And I can remember this is a true memory. I remember asking my dad, what is California emissions? And he had to explain to me that California is creating standards that are above and beyond what is the national norm. I don't remember how he explained it to me, but that's what it was. That California living its values. That is how democratic systems evolve. That is how our system, Vermont's system, should evolve. And here, this question is really, really simple. If someone is exercising government authority over members of the public, particularly in moments involving detention, arrest, use of force, the public has a legitimate interest in knowing who that person is. And that principle should not disappear because the patch on the sleeve is a federal patch instead of a state patch. And I am thankful for the member who called for this roll call because the roll call removes our masks of anonymity when we make these votes. And I will urge this body to know that Vermonters are watching us without our masks as we take this vote. And I would ask this body to think about truly and sincerely what do your mem what do your constituents want you to vote right now on whether or not federal authority should be masked when they're doing these arrests. I understand that there may be litigation. There is litigation around all sorts of legislation passed in this chamber and in state houses across the country. But if fear of litigation becomes the standard, and that's what we're we're setting here, we're setting precedent by which we determine whether or not we legislate our values and the values of our constituents, then we are no longer legislating. We are simply trying to avoid controversy. And I think Vermont should and can do much better than that. So I will urge the body to join me in voting yes for this amendment.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on judiciary be amended as offered by the member from Winooski and the member from Bridgeport, member from Burlington?

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, The United States Of America is a nation of immigrants, and we extend civil rights and due process to every person residing in our country. Our nation also began as a result of and our constitution is framed with the right to vigorous civil disobedience in the face of state injustice. I represent a district that has one of the highest concentrations of immigrants in Vermont as well as one of the highest concentrations of activists. My constituents are scared. My neighbors, people who live in the same building as me are scared, and we've prepared plans for how to care for them in the event that they are unjustly arrested by ICE. And my constituents are angry, and they want us to do something about the violation of our civil rights and due process in our state. On their behalf, I'll be voting yes on this amendment to s two zero eight. Along with some of my colleagues, I was also present as an observer and advocate on Dorset Street during the recent ICE enforcement action against Vermonters. I stood several feet away watching as and being knocked down by unidentifiable state law enforcement violently clearing a path for masked and unidentifiable federal law enforcement who then went on to arrest three Vermont residents for which no warrant had been issued. I then watched as unidentified federal and state law enforcement escalated violence with, against Vermonters who were protesting ICE's action when those present exercise and they were exercising their constitutionally protected speech and nearly entirely peacefully engaged in civil disobedience despite the violence of law enforcement. I have read endless analysis on the, the decision in California, and it seems that this amendment and the, once the bill is amended with this language, it seems to address the concerns that were raised in the California decision and is, consistent with actions being taken in nearby legislatures. And I strongly believe that there are other state interests and other constitutional rights that we need to let the the courts try to address. For example, every single person residing in The United States has a constitutional interest in knowing who is exercising government authority over them. Unidentified agents make it impossible to file grievances, assert rights, or seek accountability. States have a legitimate interest in protecting residents from that from what amounts to anonymous state violence, whether it is federal, state, municipal, or county law enforcement. Accountability is also a compelling state interest. Courts have long recognized government transparency and accountability as compelling interests. Requiring visible identification is a narrow, minimally intrusive means of achieving that interest and so long as it applies to all enforcement, all law enforcement, we aren't substantively, you know, preventing the federal government from operating. For these reasons, and again, in support of my constituents, I urge the body to vote yes.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on judiciary be amended as offered by the member from Winooski and the member from Bridport, member from Stowe?

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Madam speaker, I've advocated and fought for democracy and freedom versus autocracy and tyranny. And what it's possibly just fortuitous or even possibly providential. But today, I found that I was joined by what I consider my moral intellectual North Star, the representative member from Northfield in the body today after a significant absence. And I want to remark how critical that member's been to me with her deep thought, understanding, and courage. And I also wanna point out the member from Montpelier, the member from Winooski, the member from Norwich who spoke very powerfully about where their values came from. So with regard from the member from Burlington who was talking about something, I do remember Mayberry and Andy Taylor and, you know, Barney Fife, and they never wore masks. It was always the bad guys. So I don't mean to make light over an incredibly serious subject, but I will be voting yes and support this amendment. I will be voting yes to support the bill. Thank you, madam speaker.

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

[Representative Michael Morgan (Milton)]: I've been listening to all the reps today, and I understand all your concerns. My concern is confusing our fellow Vermonters and causing more of a problem and hate and discontent among the people. Can oh, I'm making a statement. I do not think Vermont can we can enforce it. I thought it was a federal regulation, and my concern is it's gonna cause so many problems because people watching this, like a fellow rep said, Vermonters are watching, they're gonna be confused and think if this passes, then we can enforce it, which I do not think we can enforce federal. So I just hate to cause more hate in Vermont. We need to all start getting along.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on judiciary be amended as offered by the member from Winooski and the member from Bridport, member from St. Johnsbury?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Madam speaker, I came to the floor today prepared to vote no on this amendment. But just to show that debate on the floor of the house is not always performative, I've changed my mind. I was persuaded earlier that this amendment is is likely unconstitutional in that it it it violates the supremacy clause of the constitution, federal government. It follows its rules, not in deference to state rules. And I am, as most members know, I typically follow rules. Anybody who drives behind me on Route 2 between here and Saint Johnsbury knows that I'm usually driving the speed limit and getting a pile of cars behind me. But in this case, it seems obvious, I think, to all of us that the actions of federal agents in the when when they're masking and not wearing uniforms or identify identification is not constitutional. And I think that it is worth sending that message to whoever is listening out there that the Vermont House does not allow that, does not agree with that, and will not stand for that. So I will be voting yes on this amendment.

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

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, just like to clarify a couple things first, and then wanna talk a little bit about, my reasoning for, urging the body to vote no on this amendment. First of all, there there, one of the members from Burlington happens to be on judiciary committee, quoted from a district court opinion in in-depth. That district court opinion was overruled by the ninth circuit. That reasoning of the district court was rejected by a higher court, which frankly I think had much better reasoning as confirmed by some of the legal experts I talked to including legislative counsel, attorney general, civil rights division attorney, and a constitutional scholar who has been practicing law in this realm for forty five years and has been a president of a number of law schools, currently a professor at the Vermont, Law and Graduate School, who said that this is this is going to be found unconstitutional. So I I happen to agree though that the federal law enforcement that federal law enforcement should face restrictions on when they can conceal their identities. But I believe that no state including Vermont can impose such restrictions on the federal government consistent with the constitution. And we do have an obligation to to uphold the Vermont and The US constitution. A year ago this past January, we all swore or affirmed that we would support the constitution of The United States. I take that seriously and there's different opinions on what that entails. What I think that entails is looking at the bills that we pass, particularly in the judiciary committee because this is an area of our expertise and jurisdiction, is we look at bills and determine if they're constitutional, if we think they're constitutional, if we think the court is going to find because it's true. Ultimately, court, the US Supreme Court ultimately has a final word on what is constitutional or not. But that doesn't mean that we go forward when we believe that the arguments are very much against us and that we only have weak arguments. Anyway, under the supremacy clause of the constitution, states generally may not regulate the federal government's operations. This doctrine is known as intergovernmental immunity. It prevents the federal government and the states from intruding on each other's authority. In my view, this amendment to s two zero eight would violate intergovernmental immunity. The provisions in the amendment would override the federal government's authority whether we agree with it or not to determine whether how and when to publicly identify its officers or to allow them to wear a mask. By doing so, the amendment would regulate the manner and conditions under which federal agents can enforce federal law. S two zero eight would directly regulate the performance of actions carried out by federal officials in their official capacities. Put simply, the amendment tells federal employees what they can and cannot do while on the job And as such, it would run afoul of intergovernmental immunity. It would almost certainly be deemed unconstitutional once it was inevitably challenged in court. That is true that states can have general rules that apply to everyone including federal officials. For example, traffic laws apply to everyone including federal officials. Rules such as traffic laws may indirectly regulate federal officials so long as they are not overly burdensome. But s two zero eight does not regulate conduct that any Vermont Vermonter could perform so it does not indirectly regulate federal officials. It is directed at the conduct of law enforcement exercising their authority whether we agree with that authority or not. The amendment would therefore directly regulate how federal law enforcement conduct their operations. A mask ban and ID requirement regulates federal law enforcement officers only in their capacity as federal law enforcement officers, only when performing their federal law enforcement functions. It doesn't impact anyone else. It does not impact private citizens. Again, it is not an indirect regulation like a traffic law that could be potentially phone constitutional. So if this body were to proceed with this amendment making federal officials subject to the masking and identification standards,

[Representative Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: the

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: law's constitutional constitutionality would surely be challenged in court. The ninth circuit court of appeals as others have mentioned recently held that a similar bill in California violates intergovernmental immunity. While this is not the circuit overseeing Vermont, our second circuit court of appeals would likely find it very persuasive. The experts most of the experts I've talked to outside of advocates have agreed. So madam speaker, may I quote from the ninth circuit's opinion in US v California?

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

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: The supremacy clause prohibits states from enacting a law that directly regulates federal operations even if the law regulates state operations in the same manner, the state law directly regulates the conduct of The United States. It is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with federal functions or operations. It's end of the quote. So house judiciary and this body must often pass on whether we think courts would find a bill to be constitutional. In those circumstances, we judge how strong the arguments are that we would be that would be advanced in court. And I have on numerous occasions stood here and asserted that we should proceed with passage of a bill because in my best judgment, as informed by legislative counsel and other witnesses, the bill would likely be found to be constitutional. It is not a fear of litigation. It is understanding what the constitution is likely to require. I cannot say that regarding this amendment to s two zero eight. I understand why many of you are vigorously in favor of this amendment. I too have heard from my constituents that this issue matters to them, and I agree that those exercising police power in our state should not be able to do so anonymously. But if we kept federal agents in s two zero eight, in my judgment, as informed by legislative counsel and constitutional law experts, the law would be found to be unconstitutional. Our arguments are weak. The constitutionality of s two zero eight is not uncertain, and we should save Vermont's litigation resources for laws that have a better chance at being upheld. I've also heard a lot about how we are concerned with the administration not following the rule of law. I urge that we don't do the same, that we should be following the rule of law. We should be following what the constitution requires, and I ask the body to vote no.

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

[Representative Saudia LaMont (Morristown)]: Madam speaker, I was almost not gonna say anything. I was trying really hard. I don't think we are restricting federal agents with this amendment. We are liberating them. The only way to break down barriers is to see the face of the person you're engaging with, to be able to know who is approaching you. We have heard how this pertains to immigrants. However, I'm a survivor of many things, vulnerability moment here again. I don't know how many other people in this body have been abducted and held against their will. That is a very unpleasant experience, and I would hope that federal agents would not be want want to be considered the same as my perpetrators. Do your job. Operate under the rule of law with transparency and accountability and dignity. Take pride in your work. That is what we should be advocating for. That is what should be constitutional. That is what should be moral. And we come here and we advocate for constitutional amendments. And I've already my colleagues have already said the history of where we've come from and how we've gotten here. The history of people in power abusing that power wearing masks and abusing that power to cause harm, detriment, and fear. It's unnecessary. If you are operating under order of authority, then do so with integrity, dignity, and no anonymity. This is so not about whether or not we support law enforcement or not. It is about transparency, and it is about humanity as we engage with each other and as people come in. The Caesar of the border patrol was just here last month. I don't know what that conversation looked like, but this moment right now tells me that there are other conversations that are happening in this state that I am not privy to, that other people in this body are not privy to. So what we need to do is do what's within our power and our control, and that is pass this amendment to leverage the protections of Vermonters because we have already seen that it is not only immigrants who are being taken off the streets. I hope the body will vote yes for this amendment and also pass the legislation.

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

[Representative Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I want to say that I appreciate the marks from the member from South Burlington. The chair and their committee is a group of folks that I respect, and that respect has been earned. And when they comment about the legal analysis, constitutional analysis, I have no reason to I have no basis. Simply, I respect that. I'm thinking, though, that in past lives, I was an attorney. And I'm thinking we're coming up on the two hundred fiftieth anniversary of our republic. And I'm thinking back to those times. And if we simply followed the law at that point, we would not be where we are today. So I think there are some times when you need to distinguish some of legal analysis to what's going on, and I see a counter revolutionary effort. And I think we need to do all we can to resist it. Thank you, madam speaker.

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

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Madam speaker, supporting this amendment is entirely consistent with the values reflected in the prior work of this body and in our communities across the state. Accountability, transparency, civil liberties, and community trust. I urge the body to vote yes.

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

[Representative Mary-Katherine Stone (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I beg the body's indulgence for rising a second time on this issue. I simply wanna point out clearly and for the record that this amendment has not been found unconstitutional. This bill has not been found unconstitutional. At the beginning of the session, when we started working on this, it was clear that a bill like this might get challenged in court, and it might get struck down. The Ninth Circuit's decision has not changed that. This might get challenged in court, and it might get struck down. The constitutional arguments in favor of this amendment may not be strong, but they are not nonexistent. And the moral arguments are rock solid. And history has taught us that preemptive capitulation is rarely successful.

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

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Morals go both ways. And although I wish that what had happened in Minnesota hadn't happened, and it was a travesty. And I do agree there were some over overhandedness in South Burlington. I have several friends in that work in that community. They don't work for the arrows. They would not have handled it in that matter. But I will say this, talking to one of the mothers who's very common sense, known her for twenty years. I said, where is your husband unmasked? And she turned to me and a tear ran down her cheek, and she said, do you have to go to your high school and ask them not to show your child's face and name at the same time? We cannot have our children's face and name shown at the same time. For this, I'll vote no.

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

[Representative James Masland (Thetford)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I need to compliment the member from South Burlington on his arguments on the legal reasons why we should vote no on this amendment, and his reasoning is, pretty well well established, well expressed, and on balance, I would have to agree with him. But I'd have to say, madam speaker, I'm going back quite a ways and roundabout to get to my answer, which was when we were re rewriting chapter one seventeen, a number of deck entitled 24. A number of decades ago, we frequently found ourselves working with the the city planner town planner in Middlebury, who we found had frequently come right up and even exceeded what was allowed in statutes in order to make significant points about what's possible within planning and zoning. And we found in committee that he was absolutely correct. And so what we did was, in many cases, adapt his reasoning and arguments and add into the rewrite of chapter one seventeen significant parts which are now law. That's a roundabout way, madam speaker, to get to my point, which is the notwithstanding excellent presentation from the member from South Burlington. What we're talking about on the floor here today is pushing the envelope. And I think it's our obligation in this circumstances in this circumstance, in this time and place, to push the envelope. It may very well that voting yes for this amendment will found the, what we do unconstitutional, but that does not mean we won't have significantly pushed the envelope in the direction it morally needs to go. Thank you, miss madam speaker. And so for that reason, I'm going to be voting yes on the amendment.

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Thank you.

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

[Representative Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Essex)]: Madam speaker, I'm devastated by what is happening across the country and has happened here in Vermont. Vermonters deserve transparency and accountability from law enforcement, local, state, and federal. Vermonters also deserve to be free and safe in their communities. In this body, we have jurisdiction to enforce transparency and accountability on local and state officers. Over the fifth fifteen years I've worked as a public servant, I've worked closely with our local police in Essex. I respect them and the work they do as I respect all officers in the state of Vermont. But we had Vermont officers wearing masks during the Dorset Street raid. We need to ensure we pass legislation that will survive the process that we have in this body and that we help Vermonters every day, not just when federal agents are in Vermont. Madam speaker, this body has worked this year to pass legislation to protect our immigrant community from federal action, and I'm really proud of our work. I've heard from constituents to both pass and not pass this amendment. While this is a very hard vote for me, I am voting no so that we can move to the next to the house judiciary amendment and move legislation that will apply to our local and state officers and that has a chance of surviving the process. I'm also voting no to uphold the oath I took to you ten years ago when I started serving my community in this body. I encourage everyone to vote no.

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

[House Clerk]: Arsenault Williston. Austin of Colchester.

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

[Representative Saudia LaMont (Morristown)]: Will

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: 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 electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes in conversation during the 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 report of the committee on judiciary be amended as offered by the member from Winooski and the member from Britt Brittport? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk]: Bailey of of Hyde Park. Yes. Bartholomew of Heartland. Yes. Bartley of Fairfax. Yes. Rebecca Winooski. Yes. Birong of Regents? Bishop of Colchester? No. Black of Essex? No. Bloomley of Burlington?

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Oswin at Westminster?

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Basha Clarendon. No. Boutin of Berry City. Boyden of Cambridge. Yes. Brady Williston. Yes. Branagan of Georgia. Branagan of Saint Albans Town. No. Brown and Richmond. No. Burditt, West Rutland. No. Burkhardt Brattleboro.

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

[House Clerk]: Burkhardt of South Burlington. Burrows of West Windsor. Yes. Burditt Cabot. No. Campbell, Saint Johnsbury. Yes. Canfield for Haven. Carris Duncan of Whitingham. Yes. Casey Montpelier.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Casey Hubbardton. No. Chapin at East Montpelier. Yes. Charlton of Chester. Christie of Hartford. Gina of Burlington. Yes. Coffin and Cavendish. No. Cole of Hartford. Yes. Conlon at Cornwall. Yep. Cooper Pownall. Yep. Corcoran of Bennington. Critchlow, Colchester. Yes. Demar of Venusburg. Dickinson of Saint Albans Town. Doverville to Williamstown. No. Dodge of Essex. Dolan of Essex Junction. Dolgin of Saint Johnsbury. No. Donahue of Northfield.

[Representative Saudia LaMont (Morristown)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Duke of Burlington. No. Durfee of Shaftsbury. Yes. Eastes of Guilford. Emmons of Springfield. Yes. Feltus of Linden. No. Galfetti, Beartown. Garifano of Essex. Goldman of Rockingham. Good night, Brattleboro. Go. Ghostland of Northfield. Granny of Jericho. Greer Bennington. Yes. Greg War of Fairfield. Hanger of Berkshire. No. Harpaul Glover. Yes. Harvey Castleton. Frederick of Burlington?

[Representative Mary-Katherine Stone (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Higley of Lowell? No. Holcomb of Norwich? Yes. Cooper Randolph? Yes. Hooten Domestic Junction? Howard or Rutland City. Holland or Rutland Town. No. Hoyer Hartford. Yes. Hunter Manchester. Yes. James in Manchester. No. Kasenska, Burke. Keyser of Rutland City. Kimball Woodstock. No. Kutner, Burlington.

[Representative Mary-Katherine Stone (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Kornheiser, Battleboro. No. Carrisnow, South Burlington.

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

[House Clerk]: Labor and Morgan. No. Lallie Schauburn. No. The loan of South Burlington. No. Lamont of Morristown.

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Larisha Franklin. Lipsky of Stowe?

[Representative Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Logan of Burlington?

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Long and Uffin? No. Long and Milton? No. Leaders of Lincoln? Luno of St. Albans City. No. Maguire of Rutland City. No. Mollie of Pittsburgh. No. Mark of Coventry. No. Maslin of Thetford.

[Representative Will Greer (Bennington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: McKenna Montpelier. McCoy Pulteney. No. McGillibrary Porte. Yes. Nicholas and Milton. Yes. Mollie Callis. No. Meniere of South Burlington. Morganella Milton? Yes. Morgan Emma Milton? Yes. Horse Springfield? No. Horsey Bennington? Mora Weston? Yes. Rokhi Putney? Nelson, a derby. No. Nielsen, a Brandon. No. My girl, Bennington. No. Martha Fairsburg. No. Boise of Volkhardt. Yes. Nugent of South Burlington? No. O'Brien of Tunbridge? Yes. OD Burlington? No. Oliver Sheldon? No. Olson of Starksboro? Yes. Page in Newport City. No. Parsons Newberry. Pezzo of Colchester. No. Bentonaldo Dorset. No. Houcher Hinesburg.

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Powers of Waterford? No. Presley of Bradford? Yes. Bridget Burt. Burditt of London? No. Rachelson of Burlington?

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: It's desolation.

[House Clerk]: Secwitz Randolph? Shia Middlebury.

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Pulteney)]: No explanation.

[House Clerk]: Scully of Burlington. Sheldon of Middlebury. Sibeli of Dover. Yes. Susie of Barrytown. Southworth of Walden. No. Square Of Underhill. No. Steady Milton. No. Stevens of Waterbury. Yes. Stone of Burlington.

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

[House Clerk]: Sweeney of Shelburne. No. Taglavia Carrith. No. Taylor Mendon. No. Thomas and Munuski. Yes. Torrey Mortown. Walker Swanton. I know. Watches at Zacchae Berry City.

[Representative James Masland (Thetford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Waters Evans to Charlotte. No. Wells Of Brownington. No. White Watesfield. Yes. White Bethel. Winter Of Ludlow? No. Water Waterbury? Jacoboni, Morristown?

[Representative James Masland (Thetford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Arsenault of Williston? Birong of Vergens. Christie of Hartford. Howard of Rutland City. Keyser of Rutland City. McCannan Mumpillier, Scully, Burlington, and Susie, Barre Town.

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

[Representative Angela Arsenault (Williston)]: I voted yes for this amendment because I'm a citizen legislator, not a lawyer. I know that my beloved Minnesota has been terrorized and traumatized in ways I could never imagine in my lifetime and in my country. Thousands of Minnesotans literally put their lives on the line to defend their neighbors against masked federal agents who ripped people out of cars, dragged them out of homes, tore children away from parents, and disrupted schools to an extent that makes COVID closures seem minor. The very least I can do is vote my conscience in this unimaginable moment.

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

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Madam speaker, anonymous, unaccountable, unconstitutional actions by government agents undermines the foundation of our society and America's experiment in democracy. In this two hundred and fiftieth year of our declaration of independence, with its enumeration of government insults against the people, I cannot fail to object to the insults of the current administration. I vote yes.

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

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: Madam speaker, I voted no on this amendment to avoid a veto by the governor. Yesterday, he vetoed a much less consequential bill stating that it was unconstitutional. Our constituents deserve the protections of the underlying bill.

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

[Representative Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: Madam speaker, I voted yes on the amendment. In the midst of a counterreferral action efforts to undermine our democratic republic, legal analysis must always be respected, but it is not always enough.

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

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, until the supreme court of the United States makes a determination, the constitutionality of this bill is not decided. I voted yes as this is a very reasonable step that Vermont could take. I stand with New Jersey, Washington, Connecticut, and soon New York to protect our citizens.

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

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: Madam speaker, like many of us here today, I am furious with the behavior of ICE and their disregard for human life and dignity, as well as their cowardice and hiding behind masks. However, I took an oath to uphold the Vermont and US constitutions, and as of today, the ninth circuit court has ruled this proposed amendment unconstitutional. The house judiciary committee's amendment will preserve the core purpose of the bill while adapting it in response to our revolving legal landscape to be sure it can be implemented. It will improve transparency for Vermonters interacting with their state and local police. I would rather have this bill as it came from house judiciary than no bill at all.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Colchester. May I explain my vote? You may.

[Representative Doug Bishop (Colchester)]: If I thought for one second voting yes on this amendment would stop ICE from wearing masks if and when they come to Vermont, I would have voted yes. But voting yes would do absolutely nothing to stop ICE from wearing masks in Vermont. This administration acts with impunity regarding the constitution, the rule of law, and our democracy, prioritizing executive powers over established legal norms and eroding checks and balances that are meant to safeguard individual rights and limit government authority. Wearing masks is the least of our worries.

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

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

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

[Representative Michelle Bos-Lun (Westminster)]: What is happening all over the country with masked officers hauling men, women, and children, both citizens and noncitizens documented and undocumented into unmarked cars and off to uncertain futures cannot continue. We need to make strong policies here in Vermont to protect Vermonters, to make clear our values, to make clear our intentions, to stand up to authoritarianism. I thank my colleagues from all parties who supported this amendment. It gives me hope that one day we will make change together.

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

[Representative Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Barre Town)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

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

[Representative Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Barre Town)]: I voted yes on this amendment because without it, we are simply targeting Vermont law enforcement for the actions of the federal government. Now that this amendment has failed, I urge you to vote no on the underlying bill and support our local police.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Please listen to the results of your votes. Those voting yes. Member from Milton.

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

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

[Representative Michael Morgan (Milton)]: I hear the concerns on the masking. However, knowing we cannot enforce what federal agents do, My concern is for my state and local law enforcement officers. Our officers receive intense training on how to protect and serve us. I have complete trust in my own Milton officers and how they serve the Milton community with the utmost integrity, and I am here for them too.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members, please listen to the results of your votes. Those voting yes, 65. Those voting no, 77. The nays have it and you have declined to amend the report of the committee on judiciary. So now 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 Essex Junction.

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: Yes. Madam speaker, it's just been a little bit since I shared about this original judiciary amendment of the bill. And so I just wanted to center us and share that this version that's coming to you from house judiciary addresses transparency, accountability, and public trust in law enforcement interactions, specifically requiring clarity around officer identification and the use of facial coverings during public encounters. And that your house judiciary committee passed it out favorably and we ask you to vote yes.

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

[Representative Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wanna start with a quote from John chapter 15 verse 13. That greater love has no

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Point of order, madam speaker.

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

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: The member didn't ask you to read a quote. They just said they were gonna read a quote, and my understanding is we have to ask permission.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the members please come up for a moment? The house will stand in recess. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Member from Burlington, I find your report your point of order not well taken. The a member can attribute, to the the, reference that he that they are reading from. Member from Castleton, the floor is yours.

[Representative Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you, madam speaker. As I was saying, John chapter 15 verse 13, that greater love has no one than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends. Every single one of us is blessed beyond measure to live in the freest and most prosperous country in the history of the world. A huge reason we can all come to work each day and serve the people of Vermont is because there are other men and women protecting that freedom both abroad and those that serve closer to home. I'm talking about the dads and moms, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters that serve in Vermont law enforcement. My colleague and friend, the member from Milton, puts it more eloquently than I ever could. The men and women who serve write a blank check each and every day payable with their life. And, madam speaker, that is not an abstraction. It's not a slogan. That is who these people are at their core. On 12/17/2023, Vermont State Police Trooper Michelle Archer was on patrol near Cambridge when a 911 call came in. An eight year old girl had fallen through the ice on a frozen pond. Trooper Archer arrived in less than five minutes. She grabbed a throw rope, removed her duty belt, and jumped into near freezing water to swim to the little girl. This past March, the Carnegie Hero Fund Commission named her a Carnegie Hero, one of only 17 people in all of The United States and Canada that year to receive the medal. And madam speaker, in her own words, trooper Archer said the biggest reward of all was simply this, the little girl survived and fully recovered. That is Vermont law enforcement. That same day in Cambridge, Trooper Archer was not alone. Trooper Keith Coat and four others were recognized for rescuing and providing life saving support after two children fell into the frozen pond. Less than two weeks later, on December 30, a sergeant and seven other troopers brought home a man who had been missing for hours and exposed to severe Vermont winter. In April, three more troopers pulled a man out of the middle of Holland Pond, clinging to an overturned canoe. In September, dispatcher, Janaia Corcoranus, talked to mother through delivering her own baby, feet first, over the phone. In July, sergeant Joshua McCullough, trooper Richard Burlundy, and trooper Jesse Nash apprehended a fugitive who was actively shooting at them. They received the lifesaving award in the combat cross. These are not headlines from faraway places, madam speaker. These are our neighbors. The Vermont State Police provides law enforcement to 200 towns in this state. Their dispatchers answer 89% of every nine one one call made in Vermont. 332 sworn members, 64 dispatchers, and their civilian staff. That is who we're talking about today. And it is not just rescues. In Bennington County, United Counseling Services embeds crisis intervention specialists right inside the state police Shaftsbury Barracks and the Bennington Police Department so that when a Vermonter is having the worst day of their life, a trained mental health professional rolls up alongside the officer. That is not a department running from its community. That is the department running toward it. Madam speaker, this brings me to s two zero eight. I wanna begin with where this bill originated. It was born out of altercations America saw play across our television screens in Minneapolis. While I don't agree with the need, I do understand the underlying emotions that prompted it. What happened from the time introduction to today is the Ninth Circuit appeals in California struck down a majority of the bill due to finding it unconstitutional and now I'm proud to say that this body has done the same. When these updates were presented to House Judiciary, instead of relinquishing the bill altogether, altogether, the intent was turned from federal law enforcement to Vermont law enforcement. The committee vote on this bill was six-five. Six to five. That tells you what we all know in our hearts. This is not a settled question and is not a small one. The men and women I just described, the trooper who jumps into a frozen pond, the dispatcher who delivers a baby over the phone, the officers being shot at while they're doing their jobs. These are professionals. They are trained. They have chiefs and sheriffs and the commissioner of public safety. They have standards. And, those standards are set in the consultation with the communities they serve and the people who actually answer the call at two in the morning. Madam Speaker, when we legislate from this floor about how an officer covers her face in 20 below weather in the Northeast Kingdom or how a trooper protects her identity while working a sensitive investigation, we should ask ourselves whether we are solving a Vermont problem or whether we are importing one. I would respectfully suggest to the body that we are doing the latter. The men and women who write that blank check every single day deserve our trust, they deserve our support, and most importantly, they deserve our gratitude. They do not deserve a presumption that they need to be managed for Montpelier. Madam speaker, I will be voting no on s two zero eight. I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I ask every member of this chamber, regardless of how you vote today, to remember trooper Archer in that frozen pond and to remember that for every one of us in this room, there's a ram runner in uniform who would do the very same thing. The members of Vermont law enforcement deserve to know who has their back, and for that reason, I ask that when the vote is taken, it be taken by roll. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The members member from Castleton request that when the vote is taken, it be taken by role. If the member is sustained. If the member is sustained, when the vote is taken, it will be taken by role. 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 Essex.

[Representative Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Essex)]: Madam speaker, as an immigrant who has extensive experience with ICE before it was ICE. And before I was a US citizen, I have real fear and anxiety for me and my family under this federal administration, eve even as a US citizen today. This is why I felt conflicted about supporting the amendment offered by your house judiciary committee. I came to The US from Iran where I lived under an author authoritarian government, and I understand my colleagues' concerns about federal overreach. I also spent time in this country as an undocumented immigrant and have personally experienced the fear and anxiety that many members spoke about today. After a lot of consideration, I rise now to support the amendment offered by the House Judiciary Committee and sincerely appreciate their thoughtful work in responding to both the concerns raised by Vermonters and the evolving legal landscape surrounding this issue and acknowledge their difficult work. At its core, this amendment maintains the bill's important goal of creating clear and consistent standards around officer identification and masking while ensuring that we move forward in a way that is legally sound and implementable. The committee heard legitimate con constitutional concerns particularly following recent federal appellate decision on similar efforts to regulate federal law enforcement. Rather than risk a lengthy litigation or jeopardize the entire bill, the committee appropriately narrowed its focus to state regulated law enforcement where Vermont clearly has authority to act. This amendment also takes a collaborative and practical approach by directing the law enforcement advisory board to develop a statewide model policy framework that addresses the officer identification and the use of facial coverings. I also want to note that our work in this chamber does not happen in a vacuum. It is unlikely that the senate would support a bill that includes federal officials, and the governor will likely veto it if it we if we can get it to his desk. I urge the members to think about what we would lose if we pass a bill that included federal officials. I believe this bill strikes an appropriate balance between public transparency, officer safety, local implementation, and constitutional responsibility, and I urge the body to support the amendment.

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

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, as a family member to people who have put their life on the line both in law enforcement and in service to our country. I would like to assure this body that like this body, there is no monolith of thought or opinion amongst those entities. I would like to assure this body that there are members of law enforcement and our military who are appalled by what is happening in our country. And as my colleague from Westminster said earlier, that gives me great hope. Madam speaker, I'd like to clarify a few points about government and law enforcement. We, in this body elected, are here to create the laws. The courts, as we've talked about today, will assess their constitutionality. Our valued and valiant and brave and fallible law enforcement, in fact, is managed by us and the laws that we create. And so I reject that a vote in support of this is a vote against law enforcement or any other servant of this country. And I suggest that we all just do our best, Vote our conscience, and I will be voting yes.

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

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I echo the statement that a vote for yes is is not a vote against individual police officers or law enforcement officers. I work beside them to traumatic incidents and I have for two over two decades and many of the law enforcement officers I've worked with, I think, would agree with me that we want to protect the rights of people, and we wanna protect our free society, and that's what this is about. This is not about stopping an individual from wearing a a scarf when it's cold out or wearing a mask during a pandemic, madam speaker. This is about preventing state actors from concealing their identity when committing state violence. This is a vote for government accountability, a free society, open democracy, and it's a vote in resistance of national fascism. I vote yes in support of our local law enforcement. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary member from town.

[Representative Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Barre Town)]: Thank you, madam speaker. But I would like to respectfully disagree with some of the folks that are urging us to vote yes. And the reason for that is because the purpose of this bill, the genesis of this bill, the start of this bill was in reaction to what the federal government is doing. And with the failure of the amendment, I see no reason to not support and allow our local law enforcement to continue to do the work that they do respectfully and within line with Vermont values. Thank you.

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

[Representative Mary-Katherine Stone (Burlington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise to share my support for this amendment. No one doubts the danger that law enforcement encounters in their work every day. No one doubts the many other professions that see that see danger every day. Health care workers are the most assaulted people in the workplace in our country. Some of them do wear masks at times, but not to hide their identity. And sometimes working with the same people who say, I'm gonna find you and get you. Social workers are assaulted regularly. Not far up the road, a social worker was murdered because of her work. Social workers don't wear masks. Child care child protection workers don't wear masks. When I was part of the team doing a welfare check, and we looked into the window and saw a handgun on the table, we called for police. That's a regular occurrence for police to escort us to do a welfare check. Police didn't wear masks. We didn't wear masks even though we were threatened by the people in there. I always thought that the people wearing masks were not on the side of law and order until this current administration, Washington, started putting these policies out. I still don't get why people need to wear masks. There's lots of other dangerous occupations that people don't wear masks or even think about it. And I'll be voting yes.

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

[House Clerk]: Arsenault of Williston. Yes.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: 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 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]: Austin of Colchester. Bailey of Hyde Park. Yes. Bartholomew of Heartland.

[Speaker 39]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Bartley of Fairfax. Yes. Rebecca Bonusky. Birong River Gens. Bishop of Colchester. Yes. Black of Essex. Yes. Bloomley of Burlington.

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

[House Clerk]: Bosch of Clarendon. Putnamary City? No. Boyden of Cambridge?

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Brady of Williston? Yes. Branagan of Georgia? Yes. Burgum of Saint Albans Town? Yes. Burditt, West Rutland? Burkhardt at South Burlington? Yes. Burrows at West Windsor? Yes. Burditt Cabot?

[Representative Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: No. That's it.

[House Clerk]: Campbell of St. Johnsbury?

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Campbell of Fairhaven? Carris Duncan at Whitingham? Yes. Casey, Montpelier?

[Representative Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Casey Hubbardton? No. Chapin at East Montpelier? Yes. Charlton at Chester? Christie of Hartford. Gina of Burlington. Coffin and Cavendish.

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Hello.

[House Clerk]: Cole of Hartford.

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

[House Clerk]: Conlon of Cornwall. Yes. Con Cooper Ponnel.

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Corcoran of Bennington? Yes. Critchlow of Colchester?

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

[House Clerk]: Demar of Ennisburg? No. Dickinson of St. Almondstown? No. Dobrovich of Williamstown? Deborah of Essex Junction? Yes. Donahue of Northfield? Duke of Burlington?

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Durfee of Shaftsbury? Eastes of Guilford. Yes. Emmons of Springfield. Yes. Feltus of Linden. Yes. Galfetti of Barre Town. No. Garifano of Essex. Goldman in Rockingham? Yes. Good now. Brattleboro?

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Ghostland in Northfield? No. Granting at Jericho? Yes. Greer Bennington? Greg Burrow Fairfield.

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Hango Brickshear. Yes. Hartwell of Glover. Yes. Harvey of Castleton. Yes. Patrick of Burlington.

[Representative Mary-Katherine Stone (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Higley of Lowell. Holcomb of Norwich? Yes. Cooper Randolph? Yes. Houghton Domestic Junction? Yes. Howard of Rutland City? Holland of Rutland Town? No. Houghton Hartford? Yes. Hunter Manchester? James in Manchester.

[Representative Bridget Burkhardt (South Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Kasinski of Burke. Keyser of Rutland City. Kimball Woodstock.

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Putner Burlington.

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Kornheiser Battleboro. Presnow, South Burlington. Yes. Labor, Morgan. No. Mollie Schauburn. Yes. Malona, South Burlington.

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Lamonta Morristown.

[Representative Saudia LaMont (Morristown)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Larussia Franklin? Yes. Lipsky of Stow? Yes. Logan of Burlington? Yes. Long and Uffin? Yes. Long and Milton?

[Representative Mary-Katherine Stone (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Leaders of Lincoln? Luno of Saint Albans City. Yes. McGuire of Rutland City. No. Malay Pittsburgh. No. Markot of Coventry. No. Mazin at Thetford.

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: No.

[House Clerk]: McKenna Montpelier. McCoy of Pulteney. No. McGillard Burtt. Nicholas of Milton. Yes. Mollie of Callis. Minnie of South Burlington.

[Representative Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Morgan Ela Milton. Morgan Emma Milton. Horse Springfield. Yes. Horsey of Bennington. Mora Weston. Yes. Rokey of Putney. Yes. Nelson a Derby. No. Nielsen a Brandon. Nigro Bennington.

[Representative Mary-Katherine Stone (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: North of Ferrisburg. Mollie S. Volkhardt. Yes. Nugent of South Burlington. Yes. O'Brien Tunbridge.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: O'Dee Burlington. Oliver Sheldon? No. Olsen of Starksboro? Yeah. Page, Newport City? No. Parsons Newbury? No. Piz of Colchester? Yes. Pinson Aldo Dorset? Houcher Hinesburg?

[Representative Will Greer (Bennington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Powers of Waterford? No. Priestly of Badford?

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

[House Clerk]: Richard or Pollet? No. Wendy of London? No. Rachelson of Burlington? Zach Witza Randolph?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Pulteney)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Shy Middlebury? Yes. Scully Burlington? Yes. Sheldon in Middlebury?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Cecilia Dover? Yes. Susie in Marytown? Southward Of The Walden? Square Of Underhill. Yes. Study in Milton. Stevens Waterbury.

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Stone of Burlington. Yes. Sweeney of Shelburne.

[Representative Will Greer (Bennington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Tyler V. Corcoran. No. Taylor Mendon. Thomas and Minusky? Yes. Tory Mortown? Yes. Walker Swanton? Yes. Waukesha, Zacchae Berry City? Yes. Waters Evans, Charlotte?

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Ela Brownington? What do Weitzfield?

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

[House Clerk]: What about Bethel? Yes. Winter Of Ludlow? No. Wood Waterbury? Yes. Nicavoni, Morristown? Byron Over Gents. Christie of Hartford. Donahue of Northfield. Howard of Rutland City. Keyser of Rutland City. McKenna Montpelier. MacGillibrary Port. Sissy Beritown. Steady Mill ten.

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

[Speaker 39]: The problem of masks has to do with the federal government. Since our state police are doing a stand up job, I see no need to give them a directive at this time.

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

[Representative Leslie Goldman (Rockingham)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The version of s two zero eight that the house judiciary committee passed addresses concerns of Vermonters about when and where state and local officers need to mask and have identification. Clear policy sets consistent expectations across the state and will create uniform masking and officer identification standards for state regulated law enforcement officers working in Vermont. This body has passed s two zero nine, s two twenty seven, and h eight forty nine, bills that expand protections for Vermonters. I truly believe that we must resist our authoritarian regime, and I will be doing that work going forward. S two eight eight is a bill that will help Vermonters maintain trust in local law enforcement as we await outcomes from the federal courts.

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

[Representative Thomas Oliver (Sheldon)]: Madam speaker, as a career law enforcement officer of four decades as of last week, I'm voting no because I, we, know what Vermonters want, and that is quality, compassionate service to Vermonters. It's always been that way with the majority of us, and I continue to vow to set an example and spread the word. Thank you.

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

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, this is not an anti law enforcement bill. It's an anti secret police bill. Additionally, impersonation of police is a growing concern both in Vermont nationally. There was an arrest recently of someone who impersonated a police officer in a police car, and the Vermont attorney general's office reported that impersonation scams involving law enforcement are among the most common type of fraud in the state. In 2023, 228 scam calls impersonating police officers were reported, making it the third most common scam.

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

[Representative Jubilee McGill (Bridport)]: Madam speaker, may I vote?

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

[House Clerk]: McGill of Bridport.

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: Yes.

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

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

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

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, as a firsthand witness of Vermont law enforcement exercising their authority while wearing masks and without any visible identification, I support s two zero eight.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members, please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 102. Those voting no, 39. 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 the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Now we'll take up senate bill two twelve which is an act relating to portable water supply and wastewater system connections. The bill was referred to the committee on environment which recommends that the house proposed to the senate to amend the bill as printed in today's calendar. The member from Ferrisburg representative North will speak for the committee and then affecting the revenue of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on ways and means which recommends that the report of the committee on environment be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from South Burlington, representative Burkhardt will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk]: S two twelve, an act relating to potable water supply and waste water system connections.

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

[Representative Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The committee on environment amended senate bill number two twelve entitled an act relating to potable water supply and wastewater system connections. Wanna help people interpret those terms. You can think of those terms, which sound rather nice, as drinking water and sewage, two things that you don't wanna get confused. As some people have noted, it's a crappy job, but somebody's gotta do it. Madam speaker, I am going to use the words permit and general permit in my report here, and so I wanna offer you the following definitions to help you understand the differences. An individual permit is issued to one specific person to engage in a specific activity and includes the conditions and requirements unique to that person's activity or property. Whereas, a general permit defines the conditions and requirements for a common, well defined activity, and it is issued just one time and made available for any person or project that meets those requirements to make use of and separately operate under it. A general permit is not issued to one specific person and is widely considered to be more street administratively efficient for both the regulator and the regulated. So as amended, this bill does three primary things, and I'm gonna explain those three things before I go through the bill. So the first major thing that this bill does is it directs the agency of natural resources to create a general permit for municipal, potable water, and wastewater connections with its associated conditions and requirements, and also alongside of that, a general permit manual for licensed designers to use. Under the general permit, ANR does not need to do an engineering review of applications that are certified and stamped off by a licensed private sector designer. In addition, the bill identifies in statute four other common and relatively simple activities for which ANR is authorized to create a water system general permit. This is a huge step forward in reducing costs and delays and improving predictability for water and wastewater system permitting. It's one that I am particularly enthusiastic about. Combining the concepts of general permit manual, the certification by licensed designers, and the general permit itself is a recipe for efficiency and a huge win for Vermonters and housing construction. The second major thing that this bill does is a change that repeals the current law that allows ANR to fully delegate potable water and wastewater permitting ability to municipalities. And instead, it institutes a partial delegation of permitting to municipalities that meets a series of requirements. Turns out no municipalities had taken long term advantage of the full delegation could pay capability, so clearly a change was needed. The partial delegation requires municipalities to incorporate into their process the requirements of ANR's general permit as described above, and it enables the ANR to retain the central data warehousing for all potable water and wastewater connections and systems, which has great benefits going forward for real estate and land records. And the third major thing that this bill does, third and last, is allow ANR to delegate to the owner of a publicly owned treatment works, that's POTW. It it authorizes them to the authority to permit treatment discharges to itself. That sounds kinda backwards, but they're permitting discharges to themselves. Waste water treatment facilities are finely tuned biological systems that digest and break down sewage into less or non harmful products. So a pretreatment discharge means the introduction of pollutants up stream from the POTW by a non domestic source, such as a brewery or a creamy creamery or other businesses that occasionally dump large amounts of waste into the sewer system that could upset a finely tuned biological system in the POTW. Thus, coordination and the authority to permit those discharges to them is a huge help to allow them to do the permitting themselves. Under the current rules, ANR has to get involved to permit each pretreatment discharge, and and that causes a lot of inefficiencies, so this bill fixes that. So now I'm just gonna very quickly walk you through the sections of the bill that appear in today's calendar starting on page thirty two sixty five, 3,265 of today's calendar. Just very quickly go through it here. So sections one and two amend the purpose statement for this section of law and amend some definitions. Section three on the following page accomplishes the first major change that I described for ANR to create a general permit for municipal water connections, the general permit manual, and four other simple low risk general permit activities. Moving ahead a a page or two to sections four, five, and six together accomplish the second major change that I discussed. It repeals the ability for ANR to fully delegate potable water and wastewater permitting to municipalities and directs ANR to institute the conditions and requirements for partial delegation of permitting to municipalities. Section five updates the fees associated with the partial delegation activities based on the size of the system. Section seven accomplishes the third major change that I discussed by allowing ANR to delegate to the owner of a publicly owned treatment works, the authority to permit pretreatment discharges upstream from themselves. Lastly, we're getting to section eight, which makes the section seven change regarding a n o ANR's ability to delegate the POTWs dependent upon something very specific, which is the US EPA notifying Vermont the Secretary of Natural Resources that the ANR is actually authorized to do that per their memorandum of understanding that's been in place for quite a while. This is this is required to enable ANR to work out this out with with its authorization under an older MOU that currently exists between ANR and EPA. And very lastly, section nine defines the effective date that this act takes effect on passage. We took quite a bit of testimony on this bill including the director of the Department of Environmental Conservation, Watershed Management Division, the community planning revitalization from the Department of Housing Community Development, the co president regional manager of the Friends Group, consulting engineers, program manager from the DEC, policy and water director from VNRC, the director of intergovernmental affairs at VLCT. I'm just gonna use the four letter three and four letter acronyms going forward because it's a lot easier. Yes. Senior engineers from MS MSK engineers, deputy commissioner from DEC, the director of Burlington Public Works, deputy chief counsel from legislative council, the director from the DEC for Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Agency, the second vice president of GMWEA, the sponsor of of the senate natural resources bill itself, and a resident of the city of Montpelier. Having taken all that testimony and, amending the bill as you see in today's calendar, madam speaker, I would like to say that, this bill enjoys the sup the support of the Agency of Natural Resources and that our committee found this bill as amended by our committee acceptable on a unanimous vote eleven zero zero. And I recommend that we vote to pass it.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: And now for the committee on ways and means, member from South Burlington.

[Representative Bridget Burkhardt (South Burlington)]: Thank you madam speaker. S two twelve was referred to your committee on ways and means because it will have an impact on the revenues of the state. The committee made two small instances of amendment to the bill as it came to us from the house committee on environment. Those instances of amendment can be found on page three thousand two and seventy four of today's House calendar. First in section eight we changed the term memorandum of understanding to the term in agreement when describing the document that the agency of natural resources may sign with municipality to delegate the authority to municipality to administer a pretreatment program. Second, in section nine, we clarified that while most of the act will take effect on passage, section five, the repeal of the fee cap for portable water supply and wastewater system permits located in designated areas shall take effect on 07/01/2026. With respect to the fiscal impact of the bill, the joint fiscal office has prepared a fiscal note that can be found on the ways and means committee page or the JFO website by searching for the bill number. I will share with you a brief summary of the fiscal notes. There are four sources of fiscal impact in the bill. First, the bill creates a new $100 administrative fee to be paid by projects that are permitted by municipalities under their partially delegated authority to issue permits for connections to potable water supply and waste water systems. Few municipalities are expected to receive this partially delegated authority so the impact of this provision on state revenue is expected to be minimal. Second, the bill repeals a discounted $50 fee for projects located in a designated Vermont neighborhood. In current law, there is a tiered fee structure for projects depending on the expected gallons of flow per day, which can be found in a table in the fiscal note. Projects located in a designated neighborhood qualify for a $50 discounted fee instead of paying these tiered fees. Act one eighty one expanded the areas in which projects could pay the discounted fee. The expanded eligible neighborhoods were expected to have been outlined in regional plans that were to have been approved by the LERP by 12/01/2026. With much larger qualifying areas, ANR was concerned that there would be many more projects for review and the $50 discounted fee would not cover the necessary increase in costs for their permitting team. Under the proposal in this bill, there would be no more discount starting fiscal year 2027, so all projects would have to pay according to a tiered fee structure. This would likely increase state revenue because projects would no longer qualify for the discounted fee, but it is difficult to estimate how many projects would move forward in a given year, so the total impact was hard for the JFO to project.

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

[Representative Bridget Burkhardt (South Burlington)]: Third, the bill creates a new connection general permit with a new fee schedule for connections to a potable water supplier waste router system. These fees would be lower than those in the current fee structure. For example, a system designed for expected daily flows of between five hundred and sixty and two thousand gallons would pay a $250 fee rather than the current $870. A very large system of over 10,000 gallons per day would pay $5,000 rather than the current fee of $13,500. The new fee structure would be expected to decrease fee revenue for certain types of projects but the total impact was difficult to model because the expected change in the number of projects was unknown. Projects that do not fall under connection general permits will continue to pay fees according to the existing tiered fee schedule. Finally, the bill repeals exemptions from state permitting currently in the Department of Environment Conservation's wastewater system and portable water supply rules. The rules currently exempt certain types of projects that modify flows to water systems for existing buildings or structures. This change would mean that fewer projects would be exempt and so more would have to pay fees potentially increasing state revenue. However, the number of projects currently exempted is unknown. This provision of the bill would start to have an impact on state revenue in fiscal twenty twenty eight. Because some of these changes potentially increase revenues and others potentially decrease revenues, the net overall impact on revenues is expected to be de minimis. These small net changes in revenue will have an impact on the environmental permit fund to ANR and the environmental division of the judiciary which currently receive fee revenue related to potable water and wastewater projects. Total revenues for the environmental permit fund in fiscal year twenty twenty five were approximately $11,000,000. We heard from the following witnesses, two senior fiscal analysts from the joint fiscal office and deputy chief counsel office of legislative counsel. We found s two twelve favorable as amended by our committee on a vote of ten zero one and we asked for the body support.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: So the question is, shall the report of the committee on environment be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means? Are you ready for the question? Member from Fairfax.

[Representative Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The, committee on environment did review these amendments and found them favorable. And I can't remember the exact vote but I know it was favorable.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: So the question is, shall the report of the committee on environment be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means? Are you ready for the question? 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 environment. Now the member from Starksboro, representative Olsen, offers a further amendment to the report of the committee on environment that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Starksboro.

[Representative Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: Thank you, madam speaker. This amendment poses revisions to Vermont's water and wastewater laws and regulations in order to better balance our commitment to protecting our environment and public health with Vermont's desperate need for housing. For too long, we have maintained conversational silos in which one perspective debates in opposition to the other. The result is that neither group becomes truly engaged in a discussion of how both perspectives, both valid, can and should be reconciled. If we don't adopt a different mindset, I fear for our society and for the young families and children we need to maintain our vitality and sustainability. The specific statutory changes proposed by this amendment are taken from h seven forty six, an act relating to portable water supply and wastewater permitting. H seven forty six was developed with the help of many water and wastewater engineers throughout the state as well as the staff of regional planning commissions throughout the state. These are nonpolitical professionals with expertise and experience in water and wastewater design, and they believe that these common sense changes to our permitting rules can both protect our environment and health while making the building of homes less costly and time consuming. Madam speaker, I acknowledge that the committee of jurisdiction would want to take additional testimony on the amendment. I wish that the bill could have been considered earlier in the session, and I hope it can be considered during the next legislative session. I strongly believe that legislation similar to this amendment will be of great benefit to the people of the state of Vermont. For these reasons, with leave of the house, madam speaker, I request to withdraw the amendment.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Absent objection, leave is granted. And now the member from Corcoran, representative and others offer a further amendment to the report of the committee on environment that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Corcoran.

[Representative Timothy R. Corcoran II (Bennington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. As you heard presented by the member from Ferrisburg, S two twelve passed out of our committee unanimously. It's a great bill. And in the past couple of weeks, I've been hearing stories and someone came up with an idea with me for me last week and I thought we can make a good bill even better. And that's why I brought the amendment. Two things I wanted to do, bring predictability and relief. Before I present the, the amendment, think for a minute, you've gone to your municipality, you've asked about permitting and zoning, you've gone to the state, got your permits for your well and your septic, you do construction, you get all of your infrastructure, it's all in, it's all done and then you get a visit from someone at DEC who says you have built in a wetland, you're gonna need to hire a consultant. You hire a consultant, pay $8,000 send the results to DEC and DEC responds that they disagree, that they're going to need to fine you. And after a negotiation, a fine is negotiated down to $30,000 That doesn't sound like a very good housewarming gift to me. That's why myself and the member from Stowe and the member from Bennington decided to present this amendment. And with that, I'll read you the amendment. It's proposing to add a section three A, 10 VSA subsection nineteen seventy four is amended to read subsection nineteen seventy four exemptions, notwithstanding any other requirements of this chapter, the following projects and actions are exempt. Sub nine, a potable water supply or wastewater system permitted under this chapter shall not require a permit amendment under this chapter or a permit under section 19 nine thirteen of this title when after the issuance of the permit under this chapter, secretary determines that the supply or system is located in a previously unmapped or undelineated class two wetland. The exemption under this subdivision also shall apply to the structure served by the potable water supply or wastewater system permitted under this chapter. And there was not just one, but in numerous occasions where I've heard this reported to me where myself and my co sponsors thought it would be a good amendment to a good bill. And with that, I'd like to yield to the member from Stowe.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Corcoran yields to the member from Stowe.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Member, madam speaker, thank you. First of I would like to law the environment committee's bill. The underlying bill is a great bill and very important. But in my community, both constituents and adjacent, I've been asked to intervene if I could to support folks that followed the rules, hired a licensed engineer, got a permitted well permit and wastewater permit from the DC, continued construction, but found that a year or two, in one case five years later, that they were found out of compliance in that the wetland in one case in Stowe had migrated. And as we know about all natural systems including wetlands and streams, they're not static or permanent. They do migrate. So this amendment that the member from Carris and I and the member from Bennington felt that it was really a consumer protection bill. If you have followed the rules, used the wisdom and responsibility of a licensed engineer, done everything right, that it was improper to go back and face fines and that are significant. So we all know that we have a housing crisis. This bill affects only, I would say, primarily rural Vermont, meaning communities that are not served or locations that are not served by municipal water and sewage treatment. And with with that, I just would urge the body to consider that this is reasonable protection for those more rural, many moderate income folks are trying to create a home for their family, follow the rules, and then find themselves at peril and financial risk. So, madam speaker, with that, I would yield either member of Bennington or others. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Stowe, I'm sorry. Can you please repeat yourself? I couldn't hear what your what you said.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Well, that that's the end of my testimony. And if there are other cosponsors that may wanna weigh in, that would be up to them. Thank you.

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

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Pulteney)]: I'm

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: sorry. There I did not hear a yield, and we need the committee report.

[Representative Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Okay. The at your environmental committee, madam speaker, heard the, from the sponsors of this bill as well as from legislative council and found, unfortunately, this amendment unfavorable, seven three one.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: So the question is, shall the report of the committee on environment as amended be further amended as offered by the member from Corcoran and others, member from East Montpelier?

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Thank you madam speaker. As was just mentioned, the vote on this amendment was seven three one unfavorable and that, the majority ask for you to vote no on the amendment. The majority of our committee found that the amendment, was unfavorable because a couple of reasons that I will share. First of all, the Agency of Natural Resources already has enforcement discretion. And second of all, there are multiple significant unintended consequences or potential unintended consequences of this amendment. The agency of financial resources only pursues enforcement if someone makes a complaint. They do respond to any complaint and look at the facts of the situation. If they confirm that a water or wastewater system was constructed in a wetland, the Agency of Natural Resources has the flexibility to choose whether and how to enforce. Whether or not to charge a fine, how much to charge if they are charging a fine, and whether or not to require a wetlands permit or an amendment to the water or wastewater permit. Having a state agency with discretion enables these situations to be looked at individually for For actions to be based on the facts of each situation and to avoid unintended consequences of a one size fits all solution as is proposed by this amendment. The first unintended consequence is that in cases so in cases where someone was acting in good faith and genuinely did not realize at all that there might be a wetland where they built their septic system, this amendment would ensure no enforcement. But people could also take advantage of this amendment and avoid a wetlands permit if they or their water or wastewater system contractor ignore an unmapped or undelineated wetland. So one unintended consequence is that this amendment would create an excuse or even an incentive to avoid an otherwise required wetlands permit when people know there is or may be a wetland. And that leads me to my next point. This amendment is a wetlands amendment. It was drafted as an amendment to potable potable water supply and wastewater permitting to be germane to this bill. The exemption from wetlands permitting that this amendment provides should be in the wetlands chapter and not forced into the potable water supply and wastewater system chapter solely due to germane ness. Legislation should be transparent and clear and clean in how it applies and where it is located. The fact that an exemption to a wetlands permit is in the water wastewater permitting statute leads to the second major unintended consequence. Both legislative council and the agency of natural resources testified to this. The agency stated that they would need a lot of time to determine what the consequences this language might be and that they did not have time here at the last days of the session. Legislative Council indicated that the language may place additional professional responsibility on the licensed engineers and site designers who certify potable water supply and wastewater systems. Although this language is an exemption from permitting, professional standards for engineers and designers may require them to commit more attention to determining whether a wetland is mapped or delineated on a property. And this could delay certification by licensed engineers and site designers and potentially delay permitting for all development, not just the development subject to the exemption in the proposed amendment. Given these significant concerns and on potential unintended consequences and the fact that ANR has total enforcement discretion, I request you to vote no on the amendment.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: So the question is, shall the report of the committee on environment as amended be further amended as offered by the member from Corcoran and others, member from Derby.

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Unintended consequences. You get a piece of land, you buy it, given to you by your parents, whatever. You get the necessary permits. You have your septic system designed. All the elements are put into place. They're designed. They're okayed. They're stamped. You build your home. DC rolls into your yard and said and says, you're not in compliance. And in front of your children says, I can make you tear down your house. I'm glad that wasn't at my house because it wouldn't have gone well. Their bedside manner is terrible. Over and over again, we've heard from people at the environmental district six, district five, the act two fifty people do their job. They send it to A and R. A and R sends a letter at the time of the when the permits to be issued say, we need another six weeks. Need another six weeks. People are getting fed up with another six weeks. People are getting fed up with thinking they're doing it right and then finding out we can make you tear down your house. Hire a consultant, pay $8,000 to a consultant, engineer, consultant. Well, we don't agree with them. It is terribly frustrating to the people out there. And for that reason, I urge you to vote yes on this amendment and do so, madam speaker, I'd ask we vote by roll. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from dirty Derby requests that when the vote is taken, it be taken by rolls. The member sustained. The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, will be taken by roll. The question is shall the report of the committee on environment as amended be further amended as offered by the member from Corcoran and others? Are you ready for the question? Member from Cabot.

[Speaker 39]: Thank you madam speaker speaker. May I interrogate the member from East Montpelier?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from East Montpelier is interrogated if she so chooses. The member from East Montpelier is interrogated.

[Speaker 39]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to ask a clarifying question. So is it possible under the current statutory framework that someone who gets a wastewater permit from the state and has that permit in hand, it's been approved, Constructs according to that permit that they could be found in violation later on of an Act two fifty regulation and that they would still be fined even though they were given a wastewater permit previously from the state?

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: I don't know anything about that. This is on the topic of a wetlands permit, not an act two fifty permit.

[Speaker 39]: Okay. I forgive me for that misunderstanding. So I guess my question then is, I'm trying to understand how someone can have a permit given to them by the state for a waste water for a septic system but then be in violation of a wetland permit. How does that does that happen and how does that happen?

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: What we heard in committee is that it does happen apparently on I have no idea what kind of frequency and that the only reason the agency of natural resources or the Department of Environmental Conservation within the ANR would know about that and would come and check it out is if there was an a complaint. We were told that's, you know, could be by a neighbor who might feel like there's an obvious wetland that they knew about that they're concerned about. And so in the case where someone constructs a water supply or or a septic system and there's a complaint, then DEC or ANR staff come out and sorry, I'm looking I'm using DEC and ANR interchangeably. Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation within the ANR. So DEC would staff would come out and take a look. They said they told our committee that they anytime they have a complaint, they always respond to it and examine the situation and then they may or may not take some kind of an enforcement. And an enforcement I think could look like a number of things. What we heard was

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: I don't know about

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: the word comment. We heard that sometimes there's just a fine. But we my understanding is that there could also be requirements to actually get a permit. And a permit for construction in a wetland or a wetland buffer means that you're being given permission to build in that space. That's what a permit is. It's permission.

[Speaker 39]: So the state has given permission to build in that space. The owner does so. Then the state can come back later based off of a complaint driven process and say you're in violation and fine you or have other stipulations.

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Yeah. The permit for a septic system is different than the wetlands permit. And so if somebody builds their septic system and never sought any clarification about whether there was a wetland there, then potentially if there was a complaint that somebody said, Hey, that was in a wetland. I want I'm going to tell DEC that I have a concern about this property, then DEC would come and take a look. So the septic system permit is separate from a wetlands permit. And so if you build a septic system in a wetland and you didn't get a wetlands permit for that construction, then you may need a wetlands permit. And DEC could choose not to enforce, not to require the permit, not to have the homeowner pay a fine or they could choose to do those things.

[Speaker 39]: It seems to me that finding someone who received a permit for them from the state was given approval to to construct something and then someone else from a different department of the state comes along and tells you actually no, you can't do that. That looks like a miscommunication within the state, not a problem for the private land owner. And to me, that's a big concern. Thank you, member. I'm through with my interrogation, but I'll make some comments now. Thank you, madam speaker. I'm gonna vote yes on this amendment because this is a problem within our state and it's communicating between departments and our citizens should not be fined for that. So I encourage others to vote yes as well.

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

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: I just wanna contribute to the conversation that we did hear from the agency of natural resources very early in the session about a lot of work that the agency is doing to improve permitting processes and collaboration between different parts of the agency that provide permits for development and that they acknowledge there's a lot of room for improvement on the coordination as well as on the customer service side of this work. And I just want to share that we have heard a lot about that from the agency.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you ready for the question? Member from East no. Member from Barrytown.

[Representative Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Barre Town)]: Thank you, madam speaker. It seems to me that this is a pretty simple and straightforward amendment that takes the burden of proof off of a homeowner who has gone through the process, gotten the permit, and followed the rules. And the only unintended consequences that can come from this bill would come into play if DEC and ANR fail to continue on their mission to map, note, and take wetlands into consideration. So until such time as DEC and ANR has a a protocol for dealing with this, The onus should not be on landowners who will follow the the the law. It should be on DEC and ANR. So this this amendment protects rural landowners. It prevents, you know, government overreach on a retroactive issue, and I will be supporting it wholeheartedly. Thank you.

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

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Madam speaker, I'd like to add a little clarity to this discussion and that has to do with the application and process to get a portable water permit and a wastewater permit. This isn't on a blank slate. That permit includes what's called a site plan, and a licensed engineer is required to indicate a class one or a class two wetland, any streams, the contours, the slopes, the house location, as well as the actual location of the wellhead within maybe a three or four foot surveyed location, and the same with the wastewater permit. No honest graduate engineer who is hired with their license and their reputation at stake is gonna ignore the responsibilities that they have to their client to design a system. Then once they've completed that, they've sent that to the DEC. It's been approved. It's been installed. So I'm respectful of the issue of unintended consequences from committee member from East Montpelier and the council, but I find it really

[Representative Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: uniquely

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: a permitting process, not a wetlands violation. We're talking about people that have followed the rule, done a design, and later are subject to a complaint driven. So I will be supporting this amendment, and I regret only that we didn't have more time to take more testimony, but I will be supporting this amendment.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on environment as amended be further amended as offered by the member from Corcoran and others, member from Newbury?

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. If willing, could I interrogate the member from East Montpelier?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from East Montpelier is interrogated if she so chooses.

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: Thank you, member. I just have a process question as far as what we delineate as a class two wetland and if that has ever changed over time.

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: I don't know the answer to that question.

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: Okay. That that was my only question. Thank you. I think one of things we're kinda glossing over a little bit is that it says a previously unmapped or undelineated class two wetland. Doesn't say one that was there when you built it. It says, maybe it wasn't even there. Maybe we didn't consider what that is now as a class two wetland then, so it wasn't a problem. I mean, genuinely seems like a pretty easy amendment for myself and I believe the people back home. So I'll be supporting it. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 46]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise in support of this amendment, and I'd like to corroborate the remarks of the member from Stowe just now. Having tangentially observed for over thirty years a family business in permitting and septic design, I can attest that the remarks from the member from Derby are not hyperbole. This is something that has really been happening throughout the state. And as the member from Derby pointed out, it can dash the dreams of young families who are wanting to build homes in our rural areas that lack municipal systems for wastewater. So, I urge the members to vote yes with me on this amendment. Thank you.

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

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, I wanna thank the committee for taking testimony from ANR and reporting that there is work ongoing there around communication. I think that's important, and and we should look forward to that. And in the interim, we should not be penalizing Vermonters who have followed the law. I will be supporting this amendment.

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

[Representative Barbara Rachelson (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I I think it's clear that ANR and DEC have work to do on sort of customer service and a focus on serving Vermonters and focusing on outcomes. And I know that they are they are doing work right now. I also think this is within the agencies and the administration's power to improve, and I would like to see that improvement happen. I think it is really important, but I don't think we need statute to change for the agencies and administration to improve customer service and improve the way that their agencies function.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on environment as amended be further amended as offered by the member from Corcoran and others, member from Barrytown.

[Representative Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Barre Town)]: Thank you madam speaker. May I interrogate the presenter of the amendment?

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

[Representative Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Barre Town)]: Thank you. At any time since you offered this amendment last week, did anyone from your committee reach out to find a path forward for this amendment? No. Thank you, member. Thank you, madam speaker.

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

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Just wanna remind the body that your house environment committee found this amendment unfavorable and we ask you to vote no on it. And I just wanna, kind of say that we did hear from the agency of natural resources who also is opposed to it. They were clear that the instances where these things are happening are rare. They're very few but they're fact specific. There were concerns raised about the misuse. One of their the points of having enforcement discretion is to, be able to utilize their best judgment when looking at these and sometimes folks are actually, disregarding the wetlands rules. They, they said it opened the door to future rather than retrospective solutions to existing problems. And finally, that the examples given were in contraindication contravention to the wetlands rules. So again, we ask the body to vote no on this amendment.

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

[Representative Shawn Sweeney (Shelburne)]: Thank you, madam speaker. It may be a rare occurrence, but the member from Derby is speaking about someone that lives in one of my towns. It's real for them. It was a 60,000 fine that they got down to 30,000 and having their a threat to have their house torn down in front of their small children. They followed the rules. They did what they were supposed to do. They had a consultant who said this is not a wetland. And they simply said, yeah, we don't agree with you. Here's your $60,000 fine. Maybe we can negotiate it down. So whether it's rare or not, it's painful and it's real and it hurts our rural communities again. I will be supporting this amendment, and I hope you do the same.

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

[House Clerk]: Arsenault of Williston.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: 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 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 The clerk can accurately record your votes. The question is, shall the report of the committee on environment as amended be further amended as offered by the member from Corcoran and others? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk]: Austin of Colchester. Bailey of Hyde Park. Yes. Bartholomew of Heartland. No. Bartley of Fairfax.

[Representative Michael Morgan (Milton)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Rebecca of Winooski. No. Birong of Vergens. Bishop of Colchester. Black of Essex. No. Bloomley of Burlington. No. Boston of Westminster. Bosch of Clarendon. Yeah. Boonton of Cambridge. Brady of Williston.

[Representative Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: No.

[House Clerk]: Branagan of Georgia. Yes. Brigham of Saint Albans Town. No. Brown of Richmond.

[Representative Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Essex)]: No.

[House Clerk]: Burditt at West Rutland. No. Burkhardt of South Burlington. No. Burrows of West Windsor. Burditt Cabot. Campbell St. Johnsbury. Campbell for Haven. Kirstenka and Whitingham. Casey Montpelier. Casey Hubbardton. Chapin at East Montpelier? Charlton and Chester?

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Christie of Hartford? Gina Galfetti? No. Coffin and Cavanish?

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Cole of Hartford? Yes. Conlon and Cornwall?

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: No.

[House Clerk]: Cooper Conor. Corcoran of Bennington?

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: No.

[House Clerk]: Critchlow of Colchester? Demar of Unsburg. Yes. Dickinson of St. Amundstown. Yes. Doverville, Williamstown. Yes. Dodge of Essex. Dolan of Essex Junction. No. Dolgin of St. Johnsbury. Yes. Donahue of Northfield. Duke of Burlington. No. Durfee of Shasbury. No. Eastes of Guilford. No. Emmons of Springfield. Feltus of Linden.

[Representative Michael Morgan (Milton)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Galfetti, Berrytown. Yes. Garifano of Essex. Yes. Gorman of Rockingham. Goodnight, Brattleboro. No. Ghost Lane on Northfield. I'm sorry. Ghost Lane on Northfield. Thank you. Granting in Jericho. Greg Burditton. Yes. Greg Burkhardt.

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Hango Birch here. Harpo Glover? Harvey Castleton?

[Representative Will Greer (Bennington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Hadrick of Burlington? No. Higley Abloh? Yes. Holcomb of Norwich? Cooper Randolph? Yes. Conor Vessels Junction? Howard Rutland City. Holland Rutland Town.

[Representative Mary-Katherine Stone (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: Hoyer Hartford. No. Hunter Manchester. No. James Manchester. No. Kasinski Burke. Keyser, Rutland City. Kimball Woodstock. No. Kupner, Burlington. No. Corcoranizer, Attleboro. No. Kresno, South Burlington. No. Labour Morgan. No. Mollie Schauburn. Alone of South Burlington. No. Lamont of Morristown. No. The rush of Franklin. Lipsky of Stow. Yeah. Logan of Burlington. No. Long of Newfane.

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: No.

[House Clerk]: Long and Milton? Yes. Leaders of Lincoln? Yes. Luno of Saint Almond City? Yes. McGuire of Rutland City? Yes. Mollie of Pittsburgh? Yes. Mark out of Coventry? Mazin and Thetford, McKenna Mount Pier, McCoy

[Representative Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: of

[House Clerk]: Portony, McGill of Report, Nicholas of Milton, Mollie of Callis, many of South Burlington, Morgan Ela Milton. Morgan Ela Milton. Yes. Morris Springfield. No. Marcy Bennington. Mora Weston. Roecky and Putney, Nelson of Derby, Nielsen of Brandon, Niagara Bennington, Yes. Freyasburg. Yes. Lloyds of Wilkhardt. Yes. New Jersey South Burlington.

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

[House Clerk]: O'Brien at Tunbridge. Yes. Boutin Burlington. Yes. Oliver Sheldon. Olsen of Starksboro? Yes. Page in Newport City? Yes. Parsons in Newbury? Yes. Pez of Colchester? No. Vincent on Dorset? Yes. Patrick Hinesburg? No. Powers of Waterford? No. Priestly, a Bradford? Yes. Bridget Burtt? Yes. Columbia, London? Yes. Rachel's in Burlington? Is that what's Randolph?

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: No.

[House Clerk]: Shy of Millbury? No. Scully of Burlington?

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: No.

[House Clerk]: Sheldon of Middlebury? No. Sylvia of Dover? Yes. Susie of Berrytown? South Road Of Walden? Squirrel Of Underhill. Steady in Milton. Stevens of Waterbury. Stone of Burlington. Sweeney of Shelburn. No. Tiger V. Corcoran. Yes. Taylor Mendon. Thomas Tomlinson? No. Torrey Mortown? Walker Swanton? No. Wassa's Zacobarie City? No. Waters Evans in Charlotte? No. Wells of Brownington?

[Representative William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: Yes.

[House Clerk]: What do I Itesfield? No. Water Bethel? Winter Of Ludlow? No. Woodward Berry? No. Jacobonia Morristown? Yes. Birong, River Gens, Burrows of West Windsor, Christie of Hartford, Dodge of Essex, Donahue Northfield, Ms of Springfield, Harper Glover, Howard of Rutland City. Keyser of Rutland City. Larisha Franklin. McKenna Montpelier. Mollie of Callis. Meniere of South Burlington, Morrissey Bennington, Roeke Putney, Susie Berrytown.

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

[Representative Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Barre City)]: Madam speaker, I'm glad to hear that A and R's opinion was mentioned on this amendment.

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Thank you.

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

[Representative Barbara Rachelson (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, the governor and his administration can improve customer service and coordination without statute change.

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

[Representative William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

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

[Representative William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: Well, I voted no on this amendment. I share the concerns of the sponsors of this I share the concerns of the sponsors. The Department of Environmental Conservation needs to reform their enforcement procedures and approaches to better serve Vermonters. I am hopeful this is underway and look forward to working on permitting reform in the next session.

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

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Pulteney)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

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

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Pulteney)]: Penalizing someone that has followed absolutely every law is simply not the Vermont way. Righting the wrong is. I vote yes.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members, please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 63. Those voting no, 74. The nays have it and you have declined to amend the report of the committee on environment. Now the member from Bennington, representative Greer and the member from East Montpelier, representative Chapin offer a further amendment to the report of the committee on environment that the first assistant clerk email 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 Bennington.

[Representative Will Greer (Bennington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The amendment that the member from East Montpelier and I put forward before the body today is in regard to an issue that the state of Vermont has not addressed over the course of too many years. Vermonters care about their land and their neighbors. Vermonters value their property rights. They also value good relationships with their neighbors when it comes to the management and protection of their land they share near one another. Now, over the past few months, I have received several issues from constituents that have been dealing with land use and property rights issues that's ranged from title fraud to easement disputes, and I feel somewhat confident and well versed in this particular area given my knowledge from working with my family in the land title insurance industry. But one of the most curious examples of land issues that stood out to me was overshadowing, the term overshadowing involving septic systems being installed on adjacent properties. Overshadowing occurs when a property owner builds in this instance a septic tank and an accompanying absorption area, which is more commonly referred to as a leach field at the edge of a property boundary that overshadows an adjacent property or properties t's to minimize leaching onto their land. You would think this would already be a law as several people mentioned to me back earlier this year when I introduced h nine twenty two, but Vermont is one of the few states that does not regulate septic isolation distance relative to property boundaries. This lack of regulation is equally lacking for both in ground and mound septic systems like we have at our home in North Bennington. However, at our home, our septic tank and its leach field are located entirely within our property boundaries because one, the system was built before any development on our road, and two, we have the acreage to accommodate this kind of infrastructure without impeding into abutting properties. Even after significant development around the original homestead farm that our property is on, our isolation distance is still located entirely within our property boundaries. Now, when talking to someone who may want to purchase a piece of property to build a house, the first question they would have after looking at a map would be, do I want to buy a parcel of land that has severe encumbrances to develop in the future? The intent of our amendment to s two twelve is not to retroactively apply new standards to existing septic systems. It simply charges the technical advisory committee, TAC, to determine how moving forward there may be alternatives provided to affected property owners in the instances of damage or property value loss and access in the event that an overshadowing event takes place. Vermonters want to help their neighbors. They want to see new homes being built and development to take place. What they don't want to see is to have it happen at their detriment and their expense of their property being less valuable and less useful because someone wants to maximize their lot size or acreage without providing reasonable protections, and it's simply not fair. More than anything to me, this issue comes down to consent. For minors are not consenting to someone using their land for their own personal reasons and having no say or no choice in the matter. It's up to the state and the state alone under current law to determine that. Fortunately, ANR through several rounds of testimony supports the amendment presented today and will begin their work to address this issue in the capacity they're equipped to handle. Madam speaker, just to highlight how the process works and what Vermonters receive when they go through this this issue, I I would like to read ANR form one for overshadowed property owners, which was published in September 2012, and to my knowledge, it's still the current form being used today.

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

[Representative Will Greer (Bennington)]: won't read the whole form, but it's a two page form. It states notice of overshadowing at the time of filing an application for a wastewater system and potable water supply permit. To the overshadowed landowner, it explains that they are applying for a permit. The isolation distances from my proposed water supply and or wastewater system extend onto your property. The extension of these isolation distances is often referred to as an overshadowing of property. In 2010, the legislature determined that people who own property that will be overshadowed by the required isolation distance be notified of that fact. So prior to 2010, there was no notification requirement. This form is being sent to you in order to provide that notice. Attached to this form is a copy of a plan that shows what I propose to build and the isolation distances that extend onto your property. Not much of a choice there. The second point I just wanna raise, it says a permit application review does not determine that the proposed water supply or wastewater system may affect or restrict potential future development of water supply or wastewater system on your property. These possible restrictions exist because the required isolation distances between potable water supplies and wastewater systems, which we've spoken to ANR about and why they are necessary in many instances. So going to the back of the form, I'm gonna read these three last points six through eight. Number six, this notification requirement did not start until 2010, and the state permit program has been in place since 1969. So it is possible that there are already water supplies or wastewater systems that overshadow your property or that your own wastewater system and or wastewater supply overshadows your neighbor's property. Sounds a little gaslighting to me, but that's just me. Point seven, the legislature created the notification requirements that neighbors have the opportunity to discuss the possible effects on future development and potentially resolve them before a well is drilled or a septic tank system is built. Therefore, you're getting this notice before the permit application is filed so that you may consider having those discussions. And I think an emphasis on May because even if you have those discussions, there's not much recourse. And then the last point says very important in all caps. Although the legislature has required notification to potentially affected landowners, the legislature did not give the agency of natural resources the authority to deny a permit application based on isolation zones that may overshadow your property. So madam speaker, that was the form that you would get from your neighbor. And you're pretty much your only recourse is to go through court and have a civil action lawsuit filed against your neighbor. So what we're doing is laying the groundwork with this amendment with how to address it. I was able to read over the weekend, and actually last week and the prior weekend about some of the DEC rules, it sent me back to physics, which reminded me why I did not go to college for physics. But the thing that this amendment addresses is the fact that it is best to leave it up to the technical advisory committee to make these kinds of determinations and rules and to advise the general assembly on how to help landowners from encroachment practices. These are highly specialized regulations and a highly specialized field of work to make sure

[Representative Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: our

[Representative Will Greer (Bennington)]: infrastructure achieves top tier efficiency and safety. Last Wednesday morning and this morning during testimony, the agency of natural resources said they support the current draft of the amendment as presented to members today. In that, it's already trying to take time to work to address this issue, and they said, and I'll just quote, that it is a significant one affecting Vermonters around the state. Now madam speaker, I'd like to put that a little bit more in context. So I'm may I quote the house committee on environment's testimony from last Wednesday morning regarding ANR's comments?

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

[Representative Will Greer (Bennington)]: To quote from Brian wet Redmond, the director of drinking water and groundwater protection division with DEC. The issues that legal counsel mentioned from 2024, we've been engaging with tech to try to take a deeper look at overshadowing requirements. It's an area that our staff spend a tremendous amount of time explaining the requirements and the laws to providers. And in addition, it's an area that's very heavily litigated within our program. So it's a constant source of focus for us, and we've been engaged with them. He went on to further say, yes, I think we could support the initiative, the amendment as it is presented today, just to put it in focus and direct it to the TAC. The goal of the amendment is not to overburden TAC and subsequently ANR, but to put this truly in focus. Since 2010, there has been no comprehensive follow through on either a on really any component of this for properties where overshadowing may not be a necessary option and rather when it's used as a tool to minimize one's own damage to their property. Or I should say also in preparing data to the legislature to look more carefully at this issue and determine statutory steps moving forward. Giving the absence of that latter example, we need to focus on that before moving forward with the former as a potential option. Again, out there into the future. Landowners have waited more than sixteen years for something to be addressed that's affecting many of them across our state, and they still do not have a resolution to the matter. And so now I just I wanna walk through the amendment very briefly. So it starts with section four a, subsection a, making sure that TAC when they report this by 01/15/2027, that they'll send that to the appropriate committees in both the house and the senate. And there's just five brief points where they would summarize first, summarize the scientific and technical basis and benefits of the environment and public health from overshadowing. Again, the goal of this was never to prohibit overshadowing. It may be necessary, but to really examine when it is necessary to to tee that up. Two, evaluate alternatives to overshadowing that could prevent or significantly limit overshadowing of property and recommend preferred alternatives. Three, present data on the frequency of overshadowing and on the different alternatives or types of outcomes that occur when overshadowing exist. Four, recommend additional steps the agency of natural resources can take to support the resolution of issues that may occur between neighbors when overshadowing occurs. And finally, five, any additional information that the TAC deems relevant to address the issue of overshadowing from potable water supplies and wastewater systems. So I just kind of ran through it pretty quickly just to give a scope of what we're giving TAC to do. I just want to highlight again that this is not about saying overshadowing may never occur, but what this is about is whether the victim, in my opinion, the person whose property is being affected has a means to reconciliation for a project that approaches onto their land, and we need to collect the data and do this study so that that can take place potentially in the future as an option. So over the weekend, I received a number of emails from across Vermont about the effect of overshadowing on their neighbor relations and the impact to their property values, and I just wanna thank them for their input and their appreciation that the legislature is taking this first step now rather than brushing it off. I won't read into all the issues that I've dealt with my constituents on on this matter, but it's been quite significant going to their properties and touring land that they now have encumbered that they cannot do anything with despite their intentions to develop. And this particularly affects rural areas and it is an equity issue. But I will close madam speaker by just saying in the same words of ANR that this is a significant issue. We should make sure this is done accurately and appropriately so that we do not continue to have the same level of civil litigation on this topic in the future. Vermonters are asking that we protect their property rights and the property values. Speaking from personal stance on this issue and observation of the complexity around this topic as we've been discussing over the past week and a half, in my opinion, I don't see this as an eminent domain issue because it does not serve the public good. This is about private gains at the expense of others. This is pitting neighbors against neighbors to see who can stake their claim first. This isn't the Wild West. We are a state of laws in respect of property rights. If you can't park your car on your neighbor's lawn without their permission, if you can't cut a tree down without their consent, you can't dump or spray toxic chemicals or contaminants hazardous to human or environmental health on their land, then why should we accept the fact that you can still put your literal excrements on your neighbor's lawn? I ask for the body's support for this amendment and happy to take any questions.

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

[Representative Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The your committee on environment did take testimony from the authors and sponsors of this amendment. We heard from ANR and we heard from ledge counsel and this amendment enjoys the support of ANR and we found it favorable eleven zero zero. So we encourage your support. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: So the question is, shall the report of the committee on environment as amended be further amended as offered by the member from Bennington, member from Barrytown.

[Representative Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Barre Town)]: Madam speaker, may I interrogate the presenter of the amendment please?

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

[Representative Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Barre Town)]: Member, when you brought this amendment originally last Friday, you were the sole proposer of the amendment. And I just earlier, I asked the presenter of the previous amendment if anybody from his committee had reached out to him. And I'm just wondering if anybody from

[Representative Bridget Burkhardt (South Burlington)]: Point of mind. Committee

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from East Montpelier? Feel like this isn't

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: a personal attack on me. It's not appropriate.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Can I please see members at the podium, please? Will the House please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? Member from East Montpelier, I interpreted your point of order around using personal you know what I'm saying. So I find your point of order well taken and I caution the member from Barrytown to use caution during remarks. With that, member from Barrytown, the floor is yours.

[Representative Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Barre Town)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And thank you, member. You you don't need to answer any more questions. And I will go ahead and just kinda speak what's on my mind. I think when I come into this building, no matter what the outcome is, no matter the adversity I face, I come here to show up for my constituents and to do what they need me to do to keep sending me back here if if if it pleases them. And I would point to the results of the previous roll call vote and the results of this roll call vote and encourage each and every one of you to show up for your constituents and fight for them no matter what the outcome may be.

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

[Representative Doug Bishop (Colchester)]: The member is impugning the motives of everyone in the house.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Alright. Will the house please stand in recess and while I see members at the podium, please? Member from Burlington, I find your point of order not well taken. Member from Barretown, the floor is yours.

[Representative Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Barre Town)]: Thanks. That's it. That's all I had.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: So the question is shall the report of the committee on environment as amended be further amended as offered by the member from Bennington. 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 environment. Now the question is, shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on environment 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 postponed 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. Members, have an update for you on calendar order. We will take up senate bill three twenty six, which is the miscellaneous motor vehicle bill. We will also following that take up house bill six forty two, the youthful offender bill and then we will I will we will be postponing the remainder of the bills for today. So now we'll take up senate bill three twenty six which is an act relating to miscellaneous amendments to laws relating to motor vehicles. The bill was referred to the committee on transportation which recommends that the house proposed to the senate to amend the bill as printed in today's calendar. The member from Swanton, representative Walker, will speak for the committee. And then affecting the revenue of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on ways and means which recommends that the report of the committee on transportation be amended as printed in today's calendar. Member from Fairhaven, representative Canfield will speak for that committee. And then carrying an appropriation, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with the proposal of amendment recommended by the committee on transportation and when amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means. The member from Burke, representative Kaczynski will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk]: S three twenty six, an act relating to miscellaneous amendments to laws relating to motor vehicles.

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

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Good afternoon, madam speaker. The miscellaneous motor vehicle built s three twenty six is on page thirty two zero six of today's calendar. For all the new members and many of the first year members, since it's s 03/26 and we're on h 944 plus the 1,200 plus bills, I just feel like I wanna let you know that as an omnibus bill with twenty nine secondtions, there's probably plus could have been another 20 plus laws that would have been individually taken that are all put together into this bill. The largest and probably the most important part of the bill is that we stood here as your house transportation committee last year and spoke to the Vermont State Vehicle Inspection Program and that we promised that we would come back this year with a focus on reducing the financial burden to Vermonters and increase the focus on safety related inspections for motor vehicles, you will hear significant more about what we have done or what we have proposed to do in relation to state inspections. So as far as the where we're at with the heat, what I'll do is just say that for a little bit of energy to move to the next section, you're gonna hear about smugglers notch and specialty cars and k trucks and even some floaties. So try to wake up a little bit. And with that, madam speaker, I would yield to the member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Swanton yields to the member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Mollie S. Burke (Brattleboro)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Section one of the bill amends 23 VSA one fifteen related to non driver identification cards. It clarifies that an individual cannot have both a non driver ID and an operator's license at the same time. This is to prevent fraud. Section two amends 23 VSA one ten regarding insufficient funds received for fees. It permits the Department of Motor Vehicles to temporarily suspend a license or registration if an electric electronic payment does not go through. And it includes language to enable the existing process of allowing individuals thirty days to pay the amount due. Section three amends 23 VSA 100 1,006 b regarding smugglers notch winter closure of Vermont Route Route 108 and vehicle operation there. You may have heard about big trucks getting stuck in the notch. It's been a big problem over the years, and we have increased the penalties for operating a prohibited vehicle, 40 foot or more in length in Smugglers Notch. Increased those fees significantly from $1,000 for first offense to $10,000 for first offense. And $20,000, the fees doubled if traffic is substantially impeded. This is because it takes many hours of rescue and records and etcetera etcetera to to help to get a truck that became became lodged in the notch. And there is also in section four updated signage and requires AOT to update the warning signage leading to small glue's notch to reflect the enhanced penalties, maybe to make people think twice before they try to go through there, has been a problem. And section five amends 23 VSA 2,091 regarding salvage certificates of title, forwarding of plates, and titles of crushed vehicles. And this just facilitates permits electronic signatures on certain documents needed to provide a salvage title to an insurer after a vehicle is declared a total loss. And that completes my sections, and I will now lead yield to the member from Hinesburg.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Brattleboro yields to the member from Hinesburg.

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: Madam speaker, I'll report on section six through 12 of senate bill three twenty six. The text can be found starting on page 3,400 of the house calendar. These are fairly simple technical changes, but I may make history by not using one acronym in a DMV bill report. So let's see if I can do that. Section six, technical change that allows the Department of Motor Vehicle to physically hand you a duplicate title if you go to the d if you go to the Department of Motor Vehicle for it. Presently, the law requires you to put it in The US mail. And for younger members, that requires an envelope and a stamp, and it takes several days. This allows them to just hand it to you directly. Section seven, another technical change, which clear clarifies that snowmobiles and all terrain vehicles have titles, require titles. It doesn't change it. It just notes it in the in the '23 BSA. Section eight, another technical change, allows the Department of Motor Vehicle to hand you a new title rather than using that dreaded post office. Section nine, a technical change, clarifies the name of the court where you have appeals to the Department of Motor Vehicle. It just clarifies the name. It doesn't change where that happens. Section 10, again, a technical change, clarifies exemptions for motor vehicle requirements when titles are not required. Section 11 has a little more to it. It increases the reimbursement for towing abandoned vehicles from public property. The fee the amount reimbursed goes from 125 to $250. This includes payments to the agency of transportation from the Department of Motor Vehicles. And we took much testimony about the difficulty of towing abandoned vehicles and finding towers who can do it, and the expectation is this added fee will ensure we can safely remove those abandoned vehicles. Section 12, another technical change. Re it just simply renumbers the the statute governing diesel fuel tax. I will now yield to the representative from Brownington who will provide the play by play report on

[Representative Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Barre City)]: the next sections of this bill.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Hinesburg yields to the member from Brownington.

[Speaker 51]: Thank you, madam speaker. Here are the guts of 13 through 17. Number 13, penalties or suspension of registration. It increases the penalty of a snowmobile that's not registered or lacks a TMA decal. Section 14, that's commercial driver's license required. Permits state and municipal employees with a CDL to operate heavy trucks in certain emergencies declared by the governor. Section 15, application for a commercial driver's license or commercial learner's permit. Creates a $40 fee for a one year CDL license. Section 16, texting violations, handheld mobile tele telephone violations. That clarifies locations where a commercial vehicle operator may not tax or use a handheld device. Also provides exemptions for hands free use of portable electronic device and use of GPS. Section 17, that's fees, adds requirement for placement of motorboat validation stickers to bring Vermont in compliance with federal regulations. I'll now turn it over to the very capable representative from Watesfield.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Brownington yields to the member from Watesfield.

[Representative Dara Torre (Moretown/Waitsfield area)]: Madam speaker, I will walk through sections 18 to 22 of s three twenty six. And if you're following in the calendar, I'm at the top of page thirty four zero nine. Section 18 updates 23 VSA section thirty three zero six to include that in the winter months between November 1 and May 1, all individuals aboard a vessel shall wear a US Coast Guard approved personal flotation device. Some accept some exceptions relating to shallow waters, ferries, and hunting and fishing do apply. Section 19 requires the Department of Public Safety in consultation with the US Coast Guard, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Forests, Park and Rec, Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Department of Health to develop and implement a public education plan to support the aforementioned section. Section 20 continues on page thirty four ten in regards k vehicles, my favorite tiny trucks and not just because I played one in the cabaret. This section updates the definition of pleasure car in 23 VSA section four to include k vehicles. It further updates the definition of farm truck to include a k truck. And lastly, it defines a k vehicle as a motor vehicle that is a 130 inches or less, a height of 78 inches or less, and a width of 60 inches or less. The next section, section 21, further clarifies k vehicle status in Vermont to operate either as a pleasure car or as a farm truck and to be subject to laws applicable to those categories. And finally, on page thirty four eleven, section 22 asked the Department of Motor Vehicles to amend the inspection manual to eliminate outdated procedures, to increase its focus on safety, and to provide clear guidance to inspection mechanics and to the public. By this August, 08/01/2026, the DMV shall provide amendments to the inspection of motor vehicles rules and adopt emergency rules to implement the amendments. The emergency rules are proposed to address the urgent requests from Vermonters to amend the annual vehicle inspection requirements. And so there are some requirements regarding this these inspection manual changes. Not more than five days after the proposed rule amendments are submitted to the secretary of state, the commissioner of the department of motor vehicles is required to submit reports to both the house and senate committees on transportation regarding the proposed amendment changes and this will include an annotated copy of the inspection manual showing the proposed changes and a brief written statement on the effective dates of the changes. And with that, I will turn it over to the member from Sheldon excuse me, the member from Shelburne who will address sections 23 and forward.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Wagefield yields to the member from Shelburne.

[Representative Shawn Sweeney (Shelburne)]: Madam speaker, I'll be covering, sections 24 through 29 amendments to VSA 23 VSA starting on page thirty four thirteen in the calendar. Sections 23 through 25 address limited use vehicles. Section 23 defines what a limited use, vehicle is. That is a vehicle built by a manufacturer that does not manufacture more than 325 vehicles for sale in The US. And these include special occasion transportation vehicles used for exhibitions, parades,

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: and the

[Representative Shawn Sweeney (Shelburne)]: like. Section 24, this section creates a new registration category for limited use specialty vehicles which are low production or individually built vehicles used only for occasional non daily transportation. It authorizes the commissioner to issue up to 12 registrations per year statewide. These vehicles cannot later be reregistered under any other vehicle category. The section sets a $26 annual fee and limits their highway use to exhibitions, parades, club events, and no more than one day per week of general operation. Section 25, inspection requirements for limited use specialty vehicles. This section establishes a tailored inspection standard for limited use specialty vehicles. They must receive an annual safety inspection and a visual emissions inspection ensuring basic road worthiness. However, they are exempt from onboard diagnostics or OBD testing recognizing that many such vehicles are older or custom built. The section aligns inspection obligations with the limited and occasional nature of their permitted use. Section 26, license plate display requirements. This section updates the rules governing how number plates must be displayed on motor vehicles. It clarifies that plates must remain fully unobscured, horizontal, and securely fastened with letters and numbers plainly legible at all times. It also reiterates that plates may not be tinted, covered, or altered in any way. Temporary and in transit place must follow the same visibility and placement standards including when displayed in a rear window. Section 27, repeal of electronic temporary plate issuance statute. This section repeals the 23 VSA five eighteen which previously govern the electronic issuance of temporary plates and temporary registrations. Repeal removes an outdated or unused statutory mechanism. Consolidates temporary plate authority under the remaining statutes referenced in section 26. This change is primarily technical and does not alter the availability of temporary plates to the public. Section 28, motorcycle noise exhaust noise requirements. This section establishes clear standards for motorcycle exhaust systems to reduce excessive noise. It prohibits exhaust systems that have removed baffles, cutouts, bypasses, straight pipes, or any modification that eliminates noise reducing components. A motorcycle that violates these requirements cannot pass inspection. The section applies only to normal highway operation and explicitly exempts motorcycles used in authorized races or exhibitions. The last section is section 29, rule making for motorcycle exhaust standards. This section directs the commissioner of motor vehicles to amend the inspection manual to implement the new motorcycle exhaust requirements created in section 28. The rulemaking must follow the standard process under the Administrative Procedures Act. These updates will ensure that inspection stations apply the new noise control standards consistently. The section ties the statutory change directly to enforcement, enforceable inspection procedures. I now yield to the member from Swanton.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Shelburne yields to the member from Swanton.

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Thank you, madam. Thank you, madam speaker. Your house transportation committee heard from over 11 supervisors, directors, inspect inspectors, and secretary, and commissioners at the Department of Motor Vehicle, as well as 34 other lobbyists including vice president of Vermont Towing Association, the Vermont Association of Snowwheel Travelers, the director of aquatics at the Greater Burlington YMCA, Wilkins Harley Davidson, lobbyists from the Vermont Truck and Bus Association. We did also hear from the associate general counsel of Department of Environmental Conservation, the Agency of Natural Resources. We heard from the Department of Corrections, and a list that goes on to 34 plus, witnesses. The vote of your committee was ten zero one, and we ask the body support.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: And now for the committee on ways and means, member from Fairhaven.

[Representative William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: Madam Speaker, the committee on ways and means reviewed s three twenty six. The full the full full fiscal note history is available on the fiscal tab of the bill page on the General Assembly website and can be pulled up through the bill number search at the JFO page. And you already know what page it is in today's calendar. The fiscal impact. This bill is estimated to decrease transportation fund revenues by approximately $200,000 and increase expenses incurred by the Department of Motor Vehicles by 32,000 per year. Section three, smugglers' notch. This section would add an increase would increase the civil penalty issued for violation of the vehicle operation prohibition set forth in '23 VSA section 101,006 b. The penalty has increased from 1,000 to 10,000 in all instances of violation and from 2,000 to 20,000 if the violation substantially impedes the flow of traffic. The joint fiscal office cannot estimate the potential revenue generated from increased civil penalties. Section 11. This section will increase the amount of towing a towing service can charge the state for towing an abandoned motor vehicle from public property from a $125 to $250. In fiscal year twenty five to twenty two thousand twenty five, DMV paid for 256 vehicles to be towed. Assuming this constant rate in future years, this section is estimated to increase DMV expenses by approximately 32,000 per year. Section 13 is a section would increase the civil penalty for operation of an unregistered snowmobile from a $135 per violation to $450 for a first offense and 500 for a second and or subsequent offense within a three year period. Again, JFO cannot estimate the potential revenue generated from increased civil penalties. Section 15 would establish a $40 yearly fee for a nondomiciled commercial driver's license, CDL. In 2025, 16 nondomiciled CDLs were issued. Given the small number of applicable instances, this section is estimated to have a de minimis fiscal impact. Section 24, this section would establish a $26 annual registration fee for limited use specialty vehicles or K trucks. The commissioner of motor vehicles would be allowed to issue a maximum of 12 of these registrations per year. Due to this limitation, the estimated fiscal impact of this section is de minimis. Section 27, this would eliminate DMV's ability to electronically issue a temporary license plate or registration to be printed by the owner of a motor vehicle. Under current law, the fee for the temporary plate or registration is $6. In fiscal year 2025, d m DMV issued approximately 33,000 electronic temporary plates generating roughly $200,000 in revenue for the transportation fund. In November 2025, the DMV stopped issuing temporary plates and as such is no longer collect collecting revenue from this fee. Amendment? Ways and Means amended this bill in section 28, section three one zero t o two after section little e to read 25, the agency of transportation provided that the disclosure re relates to tax revenue generated on the premises of airports in the state and is necessary to demonstrate compliance with Federal Aviation Administration grant funding requirements relating to airport revenue. Your committee on ways and means found this amendment favorable ten zero one, and your committee on ways and means found the bill, when amended, favorable by a vote of ten zero one and then recommends the bill have to pass.

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

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Madam speaker, your transportation committee heard

[Representative William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: Member. Madam

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: speaker, sorry about that. Madam speaker, your transportation committee heard the ways and means amendment and took a straw poll of nine one I'm sorry. Nine zero two.

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

[Representative John Kascenska (Burke)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Members of the appropriations committee received testimony from house Education Committee and legislative council regarding s three twenty six. The appropriations committee also received detailed testimony or review of the fiscal note from the joint fiscal office specifying increases as noted today regarding smuggler's notch penalties, known in section three, fees for towing abandoned vehicles, noted in section 11, and penalties for unregistered snowmobiles, noted in section 13. The Joint Fiscal Office was not able to estimate the potential increases in revenue generated from the aforementioned fees, but do estimate the increase as reported earlier in DMV expenses of $32,000 per year regarding upfront towing fees of abandoned vehicles as they're in their fiscal note. For everyone's information, two fifty six vehicles were towed in fiscal year twenty twenty five, which was used to estimate future expenses. The establishment and collection of new fees, known in sections fifteen and twenty four, estimated to have a de minimis fiscal impact, the full fiscal note can be found on our committee website outlining the proposed increase and penalties for the range of violations. With a vote of ten zero one, your committee on appropriations recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence as amended in today's calendar. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: So the question is, shall the report of the committee on transportation be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means? Member from Fair Haven.

[Representative William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: Madam speaker, I forgot to mention, who ways and means heard from. Legislative Council and the Joint Fiscal Office.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: 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 transportation. Now the question is shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on transportation as amended? 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 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. Up next is house bill six forty two which is an act relating to youthful offender proceedings. The bill passed the senate in concurrence with a proposal of amendment that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Ian Goodnow (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, our committee reviewed the senate proposal amendment on house bill six forty two. The senate proposal amendment would significantly alter the proposed role victims would play in youthful offender proceedings in a way your house judiciary committee cannot support. Therefore, on a straw poll vote of eight zero three, we recommend that the house refuse to concur in the senate proposal amendment and that a committee of conference be appointed.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Brattleboro moves that the house refuse 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. 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 Essex Junction, representative Dolan, the member from Brattleboro, representative Goodnow, the member from Sheldon, representative Oliver. Member from Pulte, can you please offer us a motion to suspend our rules to message our action on house bill six forty two to the senate forthwith?

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

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Pulte moves that we suspend our rules to message our action on house bill six forty two to the senate forthwith. 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 suspended rules to messenger action on house bill six forty two to the Senate forthwith. Next up is House Bill five eighty three, an act relating to clinical decision making. Member from Essex.

[Representative Bridget Burkhardt (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker I move that we delay action on H583 for one legislative day.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Essex moves that we postpone action on House Bill five eighty three for one legislative day. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have postponed action on house bill five eighty three for one legislative day. Up next is House Bill six fifty seven which is an act relating to various programming and requirements within the Department for Children and Families. Member from Waterbury. Madam speaker, I move

[Representative Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Essex)]: that we postpone action on age six fifty seven for one legislative day.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Waterbury moves that we postpone action on house bill six fifty seven for one legislative day. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have postponed on house bill six fifty seven for one legislative day. Our final action or final bill on the calendar today is senate bill two zero two which is an act relating to portable solar energy generation devices, member from Manchester.

[Representative Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Essex)]: Madam speaker, I move that we postpone action on s two zero two for one legislative day.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Manchester moves that we postpone action on senate bill two zero two for one legislative day. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have postponed action on senate bill two zero two for one legislative day. Members, that completes the orders of the day. Members earlier today, the committee on ways and means reported favorably on two bills that carry an appropriation and are therefore referred to the committee on appropriations pursuant to house rule 35 a pending their entry on the notice calendar. They are senate bill 190 which is an act relating to the green mountain care board reference based pricing and studying the creation of a public employee health benefit authority and senate bill 197 which is an act relating to payment reform for primary care. Are there any announcements? Member from Dover?

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Just a quick thank you to your office and the sergeant at arms and the Capitol Police for trying to alleviate the heat in here. Thank you. Are

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: there any nope. Nope. Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, member from Pulte, can you please offer us a motion to adjourn until Wednesday, May 20 at 10AM?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Pulteney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion this body stand in adjournment until Wednesday, 05/20/2026 at 10AM.

[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 ten.