Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Will the House please come to order and members kindly take their seats. As a reminder, we are on House Bill five twenty seven an act relating to extending the sunset of 30 VSAs. Chapter 248A. The question is shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment with further proposal of amendment thereto as offered by the member from Pollock, member from Dover.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Just a reminder, the house and senate I will speak for the house. The house took extensive testimony this year from many Vermonters about the process and concurred with the member from Pollet and others that this area of legislation needs work. We proposed and this body passed a workshop with the PUC to come back with recommendations next year on how to propose or how to improve this process. The senate felt that the issue needed to be addressed immediately and took that out and instead now has required that there be a mandatory hearing, which now is not required, with the developer of the tower, which now is not required, and that the Department of Public Service must attend, which now is not required. We believe that this will definitely begin to address some of these issues and that this is an area of policy that we will need to come back to. And so we are asking the body again to vote with the committee, which found this amendment unfavorable by a vote of six to three and to vote no.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment with further proposal of amendment thereto as offered by the member from Pollard. Are you ready for the question? Member from Ferrisburg.

[Representative Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Thank you, madam speaker. In 2021, the Environmental Health Trust won a landmark case resulting in the US Federal Court of Appeals in Washington DC to order the Federal Communications Commission, that's the FCC, to explain why it ignored an abundance of scientific evidence showing harm from wireless radio frequency, that's RF radiation. The court order directed the FCC to address the health effects of RF radiation on children, on the environment, and the impacts from long term and cumulative exposures of RF radiation. The FCC has ignored this court order and instead is moving to accelerate wireless infrastructure expansion without addressing the serious health concerns that it poses. On May 18, literally just a week ago, a petition was filed with the federal court to order the FCC to comply with the 2021 court mandate and update its thirty year old RF radiation exposure limits. As a representative from Paulette has shared with us, towns and neighbors in Vermont are struggling with the lack of ability to participate in this section two forty eight a process. Now that we have this federal court order to address the health effects of RF radiation exposure, we can no longer, as a state, just rest on the previous mandate to ignore its ill effects. We all likely have telecom towers or planned telecom towers in our districts, and we have constituents that are concerned about these towers and their placements. Vermonters deserve responsibly cited telecom infrastructure that does not compromise health and safety of our families and communities. For over a decade, every three years, this body has kicked this can down the road. Another three years, we did it in 2014, 2017, 2020, '23. Now we're here again being asked in 2026 to ignore the adverse health effects of RF radiation and kick it down the road another three years. I say no, madam speaker. It's time to stop and deal with this issue. A one year extension to the sunset is sufficient to force us to deal with this issue next year. The senate moved us in the right direction, but I feel like we need to address this sooner. The PUC has previously been asked to fix this exact problem in February a process and incorporate public input, but that hasn't happened. It's not what 248A process is designed for. Even if the 248A process sunsets, which it would in three years or one year with this amendment, it just reverts back to Act two fifty. Now that might sound like, oh no, it reverts to act two fifty, but in fact, controlling commercial development is exactly what act two fifty is for. That's what it's designed to do. Why would we subject businesses and housing developments to act two fifty, but not telecom towers? Makes no sense. There are deaf this is telecom towers are definitely commercial development. So let's address this issue and the legitimate concerns of Vermonters by supporting this amendment. We can work to ensure both reliable cell coverage and responsible telecom tower siting, and this is possible within the next year. This is a public health and public engagement issue, and I encourage everyone to vote yes on this amendment.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Putney.

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Being in this body for twenty years, pieces of information come and go and come around again sometimes. About ten years ago, I was approached by a group of constituents about this issue and the oncoming threat that they saw from the increase of cell towers and anything. Some of it, they wanted us to ban public Wi Fi. They wanted us to ban cell towers. I was told this was an extinction level event we should be prepared for, that people were gonna start dropping dead. Haven't seen that yet. Madam speaker, may I read from a report from Science Direct that was commissioned and partly funded by the World Health Organization, New Zealand Ministry of Health, Institute Superior, Sanita as a WHO collaborating center for radiation and health?

[Speaker 0]: You may.

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: I'm just going to read the conclusion. For near field RFEMF exposure to the head for mobile phones, there was low certainty of evidence that it does not increase the risk of leukemia non Hodgkin's lymphoma thyroid cancer. For occupational RFEMF exposure, there was little evidence that it increases the risk of lymph, sorry, lympho femato poetic system tumors or oral cavity pharynx cancer. There was not sufficient evidence to assist the whole effect of whole body far field RF exposure from fixed site transmitters or the effect from any source or any other important neoplasms. This has been studied. It's been studied around the world. And while science shares that things are always evolving and that we would do well to continue to look at how science continues to evolve, I'm not ready to support this. I've been looking into this for for several years, and I haven't seen the evidence yet. I certainly haven't seen the extinction level event that was predicted ten years ago.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Cabot.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I

[Unidentified Representative (Member from Cabot)]: just wanted to talk about a pattern that I see generally coming from this body and that's, you know, a large company that is able to construct insight telecom structures is given a channel through 248A to streamline the process and make it easier for them. Whereas, you know, when I look at things like one hundred eighty one and other other acts that have gone through here where we're seem to be trying to be more prescriptive and regulatory in nature toward the individual and small businesses. It makes me wonder why why are we being lenient and providing streamlined processes to giant corporations while we're being more prescriptive and regulatory toward our own citizens. It's a big question mark for me and that's why I'm gonna vote yes on the amendment. I think this needs to be addressed. I think there are plenty of our constituents that see the need for this to be addressed properly. I don't think what the Senate has offered is doing it enough justice. It needs to be involving more community input despite what one or another might think about the health effects. It's still people who live in these towns and have to live near these structures and we need to make sure that they have plenty of input. So I think we need to come back and revisit this and do it as soon as possible. And I'm gonna vote yes on the amendment.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Manchester.

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Madam Speaker, I thank the members for this good discussion. I just want to remind folks about some of the some of the issues that we discussed this morning and that we had discussed in earlier testimony when we passed out the bill before crossover. But in particular, some of the things we learned this morning were what what could happen or what could be the result of regulatory uncertainty. And so with the bill that we have before us, I disagree. I do think we are taking an immediate step to improve the ability of towns and Vermonters to engage in this process with a meeting that is held and hosted by their select board, by their planning commission in their town with, DPS in attendance and with the cell tower developer in attendance to answer questions, in a way and in a format that I think is gonna work for folks. So we are taking immediate steps. One of the main reasons that I do not support the Pritchard amendment is that things could go in one of two ways and I don't think either way is beneficial and I don't I think either way would be something that Vermonters would support. Cell tower construction could grind to a halt. Developers could simply stop and wait to see what the legislature does. And for all the Vermonters who work from home or live in communities where they don't have coverage or are really wanting to see better coverage in their communities, they're gonna have to wait. Or we could see what we've been told that we often see, which is that as we approach the sunset every year, there's a rush of applications and everybody tries to get cell cell towers built quickly. So I I don't really see either of those as a desirable outcome. It is a eighteen to twenty four month process for a new tower to get, proposed and permitted in our state and so I do think that coming back to take a look at this next year, if that's what folks wanna do, is great, but I don't think the Pritchard amendment is the solution.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Corcoran.

[Representative Timothy R. Corcoran II (Bennington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wanna talk about local control. We talk about it in school structure and funding with small rural towns in rural districts like my own. We need to talk about local control when it comes to tower sighting as well. In one of my towns, there was a recent discussion and public outcry with respect to a perspective sighting of a tower. And mysteriously, it went away not too long before the beginning of this session. And I was just on the phone with one of my constituents this morning to find out that that tower sighting is resurfaced. And I think with respect to one of the members bringing up the coincidences, I think it's no coincidence that with the language and the dates in the bill as it stands, are, they're not really coincidence. I think it would give enough time for a tower company to be able to get a tower in a location that is not very popular in my rural district where health concerns can be ignored and it was one of the main concerns in my district. We have small rural towns and rural districts that have limited resources and limited staff and limited control the way the bill is written. Bringing this to a sunset and bringing it back next session gives my rural district and many others the control and the seat at the table that they desire. I support this amendment.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment with further proposal of amendment thereto as offered by the member from Pollock, member from Derby?

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Thank you, madam speaker. We have a rule here, no props, so I won't hold up my prop. In my line of work, being connected is a matter of business. It's a matter of functionality, and it's a matter of safety. Our school kids went through the pandemic. They needed to be connected. Vermont does not have hardwire run everywhere, fiber optics run everywhere so people can be connected. But through good WiFi, good cell service, they can be connected. The member from STOW has talked about being in areas where he's working and he tells his wonderful significant other, you know, if you don't hear from me by 05:00, send a rescue team. These are risks that we take living in rural Vermont, but connectivity makes our jobs easier and our lives easier. And I've seen cell towers get you know, people get mad because that son of a gun's gonna make money off it. When you own land, you hope to make a little money off it. So anyways, I'm pro sell. I'm pro sell towers. And for this reason, I'll be voting against this amendment. And and then hope that with this if the senate proposal sticks in in a biennium, we can figure it out. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Member from Dover. Are you ready for the question? Member from Saint Johnsbury.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I just wanted to highlight the significance of the senate's amendment to require the public service department to be present at the municipal hearings, municipally run hearings at which the applicant for cell tires is also required to be there. And those hearings are required to be held. Those are public hearings. And those are a chance for the public active municipal level to have a say in a proposed cell tower application. The significance significance of this is that the process is is run two forty eight a process is run by the Public Utility Commission, which is, as members probably are aware, is a is a quasi judicial body much much like a court with a very rigid procedure and and standards of evidence and and all that sort of thing that really requires an attorney to navigate. An attorney who's familiar with the process. So the point of having the public service department conduct an informal hearing, a less formal hearing with the at the municipal level is to give the public access to the process without having to go through the well, without being forced to go through the the Public Utility Commission process, that being the only avenue. Of course, the public can still participate in the Public Utility Commission process, but it is, is, as I say, much much more formal. So that's really an important change, and, and I think makes the the the whole sighting process, much more public friendly.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Arsenault of Williston. Two minutes.

[Speaker 0]: 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 concur in the senate proposal of amendment with further proposal of amendment thereto as offered by the member from Pollitt. Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Austin of Colchester. Bailey of Hyde Park. Bartholomew of Heartland. Bartley of Fairfax. Rebecca Winooski, from Birong of Vergens, Bishop of Colchester, Black of Essex, Bloomley of Burlington, Bosch of Clarendon, Puttenbury City, Boyden of Cambridge, Brady of Bulliston, Fernigan of Georgia, Brigham of Saint Albans Town. Brown of Richmond. Burditt at West Rutland. Burkhardt Brattleboro. No. Burrows West Windsor. Burditt Cabot. Kim Campbell Saint Johnsbury.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: No.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Canfield of Fair Haven. Yes. Carris Duncan of Whitingham. Yeah. Casey Montpelier. No. Casey Hubbardton. Chief in East Montpelier. Charlton of Chester. Yes. Christie of Hartford. Gina of Burlington. No. Coffin and Cavendish.

[Representative Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Cole of Hartford. Conlon of Cornwall? Yes. Cooper Pownall? No. Corcoran of Bennington? No. Critchlow of Colchester? No. Demar of Venusburg? Yes. Dickinson of Saint Almondstown? Dobervich at Williamstown. Yes. Dodge of Essex. Dolan of Essex Junction. Yeah. Dolgin of Saint Johnsbury.

[Representative Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Donahue of Northfield. No. Duke of Burlington. Derby of Shaftsbury. Eastes of Guildford. No. Emmons of Springfield.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Charles.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Feltus of Glendon. Yes. Galfetti, Berrytown. Garifano of Essex. Goldman of Rockingham. Goodnight, Butterburrow. Ghostland in Northfield. Yes. Granting of Jericho, Greer Bennington, Greg Burkhardt, Fairfield, Hango of Berkshire, Harper of Glover, Harvey of Tesselton, Hedrick of Burlington, Higley of Low, Holcomb in Norwich, Cooper Randolph, Putt, Novus Exjunction, Howard of Rutland City. Hallander Rutland Town. What Hartford? No. Hunter Manchester. James of Manchester.

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: No.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Gustanska Burke. Keyser, Rutland City. Kimball Woodstock.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: No.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Klepner, Burlington.

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: No.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Corcoranizer, Bednarrow. No. Cresna, South Burlington. No. Weber, Morgan. LA Shelburne, Malona South Burlington, Lamont Amorcetown, Russia Franklin, Lipsky with Stowe, Logan of Burlington. Long and Newfane. Long and Milton. Yes. Leaders of Lincoln. Yes. Luno of Saint Albany City. Yes. Maguire of Rutland City. Yes. Mollie of Pittsford. Mark Carter Coventry? Yes. Mazina Thetford? No. McKenna Montpelier? No. McCoy Pultney? McGillard Bridport? Nicholas of Milton, Mollie of Callis, many of South Burlington, Morgan L. Emmons, M. Emmons,

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: M.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Morrissey Bennington. Nora Weston.

[Representative Kelly "Kelli" Pajala (Londonderry/Weston)]: No.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Roe Wiki or Putney? No. Nelson of Derby? No. Nielsen of Brandon?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Nigro Bennington? No. North of Fredericksburg? Liza Volkitt, Neugen of South Burlington, O'Brien of Tunbridge, O'Dee Burlington, Oliver Sheldon, Olson of Starksboro, Page in Newport City. Parsons in Newbury. Yes. Chester of Colchester.

[Representative Kate McCann (Montpelier)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Pinson of Dorset. Yes. Houcher Hinesburg. No. Powers Waterford. Yes. Priestly Bradford. No. Bridget Burditt. Quinby of Linden? Yes. Richardson of Burlington? Yes. Secoosa Randolph? No. Shay Middlebury? No. Scully of Burlington? Sheldon in Middlebury? No. Subia Dover? No. Susie of Barrytown? Yes. Southworth of Walden? Yes. Squirrel of Underhill? Steady Milton? Stephens of Waterbury. Stone Burlington. Sweeney Shelburn. No. Pegla Viekrent.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Taylor Mendon. Thomas Tomlinson? No. Torrey Mortown? Walker Swanton? Yes. Watches like a very city?

[Unidentified Representative (Member from Cabot)]: No.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Waters Evans to Charlotte? Wells to Brownington? 01/00/1982? No. What Bethel? Winter at Ludlow? Yes. Woodwater Berry? No. Yacavonia Morristown? Yeah. Boslyn at Westminster. Branahue Rich man, Christie Parker, Dodge of Essex, Harpolo Glover, Harvey of Kesselton, city, Rachel Cina Bearlington, Tory Mortown, Waters Evans or Sherlock?

[Speaker 0]: For purpose of explanation, member from Weston.

[Representative Kelly "Kelli" Pajala (Londonderry/Weston)]: While the sentiment which inspired this amendment is just and good, changing the sunset to one year is not the answer. I do hope we revisit this issue next year and we continue to build in more mechanisms for everyday Vermonters to have their voices heard.

[Speaker 0]: Member from Milton.

[Representative Michael Morgan (Milton)]: I voted no, yes. Because when I ran to be a representative, I ran for public safety. I would rather delay the process until it's positive it's safe to move forward, especially when they are close to a residence.

[Speaker 0]: Member from Charlotte.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Madam speaker, may I vote? You may. Waters, Evans or Charlotte?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: No.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Speaker 0]: Member from Saint Johnsbury, you may.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Thank you. I vote no. The effect of a one year sunset may be to halt telecommunications development, further marginalizing rural areas and the ability to attract and retain the next generation of Vermonters. Or a one year sunset could accelerate cell tower development with even less public input. Either outcome is not desirable.

[Speaker 0]: Members, please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 52. Those voting no, 89. The nays have it and you have declined to propose that to further amend thereto. So now we turn to the recurring question which is shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? The member from Will request that when the vote is taken, be taken by rolls. The member is sustained. The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. The question is shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment. Are you ready for the question? Member from Dover.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, reiterating that the house energy and digital infrastructure took weeks of testimony on this, agrees and has heard from Vermonters that there need to be changes, and we, on a straw poll of six to three, agreed with the senate changes to bring in a mandatory hearing in the town with the department and the developer and we are asking the body to vote yes.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Arsenault.

[Speaker 0]: Yes. 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 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 house concur in the senate proposal of amendment? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Austin at Colchester. Bailey of High Park. Bartholomew Hartland. Yes. Bartley of Fairfax. Yes. Rebecca Venueski. Yes. Birong of Vergens. Yes. Bishop of Colchester. Yes. Black of Essex. Yes. Bloomley of Burlington. Bos-one in Westminster. Bosch at Clarendon. Glutenberry City. Yes. Boyden of Cambridge. Brady Williston. Yes. Branagan of Georgia. Yes. Brigham of Saint Albans Town. No. Brown of Richmond. Burditt at West Rutland. Burkhardt of Brattleboro.

[Speaker 0]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Burrows of South Burlington. Yes. Burrows of West Windsor. Burditt Cabot? No. Campbell of St. Johnsbury? Camp Phillip or Haven? Yes. Carris Duncan to Whitingham? Casey Montpelier? Yes. Casey Hoverton? Yes. Chief in East Montpelier? Charles Manchester?

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Christie of Hartford? Gina Burlington?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Coffin and Cavendish?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Cole of Hartford? Yes. Colin and Cornwall?

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Cooper Conor?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Corcoran of Bennington? Yes. Critchlow of Colchester? Yes. Demar of Ennisburg? No. Dickinson of Saint Almistown? Yes. Deborah Dolan of Essex Junction? Yes. Dolgin of St. Johnsbury? Yes. Donahue of Northfield? Yes. Duke of Burlington? Yes. Durfee of Shesbury? Yes. Eastes of Guilford? Emma's of Springfield. Yes. Feltus Linden.

[Speaker 0]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Galfetti, Berrytown. Yes. Garofana of Essex. Yes. Goldman of Rockingham. Yes. Goodnight, Brattleboro.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Ghostland and Northfield. Yes. Granting and Jericho. Yes. Greer Bennington. Yes. Greg Burkhardt Fairfield. Yes. Hinkle of Glover. Harvey of Castleton. Hedrick of Burlington?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Hickley of Lowell? Lowell. Holcomb and Norwich? Yes. Hubert Randolph? Yes. Houghton of Essex Junction?

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Howard of Rutland City? Howland or Rutland Town? No. Point Of Hartford? Hunter Manchester. James Manchester.

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Kasenska Burke. Yes. Keyser, Rutland City. Yes. Kimball Woodstock. Kutner, Burlington. Yes. Corcoran, Isar Butterborough. Yes. Cresno, South Burlington. Yes. Labour of Morgan. Yes. Lola, South Burlington. Yes. Amona Morristown. Arush Franklin? Yes. Lipsky of Stow?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Logan of Burlington? Yes. Long and Uffin? Long and Milton? Yes. Leaders of Lincoln? Luno of Saint Owen City, McGuire of Rutland City, Malay Pittsford, Mark Con of Coventry, Mazzana Thetford, McKenna Montpelier, McCoy Pulte knee. I'm sorry. McCoy McGilliver Port. Yes. Nicholas of Milton. Mollie of Callis? Minnie or South Burlington?

[Representative Brian Minier (South Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Morgan Ela Milton? Morgan Emma Milton? Yes. Marcia Springfield?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Marcy Bennington? Mora Weston? Yes. Roke Putney? Yes. Nelson a Derby. Yes. Nielsen a Brandon. Yes. Margaret Bennington.

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Martha Fertsburg. Yes. Moise of Volkert. Yes. New Jersey South Burlington. O'Brien at Tunbridge?

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: O'Dee Burlington? Yes. Oliver Sheldon? No. Olson of Starksboro?

[Representative Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Page of Newport City? Yes. Parsons of Newbury? Yes. Haso of Colchester? Yes. Pentonald Dorset? Pendleton Hinesburg? Yes. Powers Waterford? Yes. Priestly Bradford? Yes. Bridget Burlett? No. Quinby of Lyndon? Rachel's in Burlington? Cyclots Randolph? Shy Middlebury. Scully Burlington.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Sheldon Middlebury. Yes. So big of Dover. Yes. Susie Berrytown. Yes. Southworth Of Walden. Squirrel Of Underhill. Steady Milton. Stevens Waterbury. Yes. Stone Burlington. Yes. Sweeney of Shelburne.

[Representative Ian Goodnow (Brattleboro)]: Yes.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Tygma Via Carris.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: No.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Taylor Mendon? Yes. Tomlinson? Torrey More Town? Walker Swanton? Yes. Wise of Zacchaeberry City? Waters Evans of Charlotte? Yes. Wells Of Brownington? No. Waddle Weitzfield? Yes. What about all? Yes. Winter Of Ludlow? Yes. Wood Of Waterbury? Icavoni, Morristown. Yes. Bosland, Westminster. Brown and Richmond. Yes. Campbell, Saint Johnsbury. Yes. Chief in East Montpelier. Christie of Hartford, Deborah Witchlow, Williamstown, Dodge of Essex, Harper of Glover, Harvey of Castleton, Howard Dorrell in Citi, Hunter Manchester, Kimball Woodstock. Long and Newfane, Long and Milton, McKenna Montpelier, Morganella Milton, Quinbeave London, Richelton of Burlington, Tory Motown,

[Speaker 0]: Member from Manchester.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: May I vote?

[Speaker 0]: You may.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: Hunter of Manchester.

[Speaker 0]: Member from Montpelier.

[Representative Kate McCann (Montpelier)]: Madam Speaker, may I vote?

[Speaker 0]: You may.

[House Clerk BetsyAnn Wrask]: McCann of Montpelier.

[Speaker 0]: Members, please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, a 122. Those voting no, 14. The ayes have it and you have concurred in the senate proposal of amendment. Member from Hultney on our notice calendar is the senate proposal of amendment on house bill six eighty six which is an act relating to expanding identification of certain lobbying advertisements. Can you please offer us a motion to rules to take up house bill six eighty six off the notice calendar for immediate consideration.

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to take up off the notice calendar for immediate consideration.

[Speaker 0]: 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 take up House Bill six eighty six for immediate consideration. House Bill six eighty six is an act relating to expanding identification of certain lobbying advertisements. The bill passed the senate in concurrence with a proposal of amendment that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Cambridge.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: Madam speaker, the senate has proposed a strike all to h six eight six relating to expanding identification of certain lobbying advertisements. I'll briefly walk through the language which can be found on page three eight one four of today's house calendar. Section one strikes orally or in writing within the definitions of lobbying. This adjustment captures any communication for the purpose of influencing legislative or administrative action. Section two amends two VSA two sixty four C identification in and report of certain lobbying advertisements. Subsection a identification subdivision one, language specific to the legislative session is struck to specify that an advertisement that is intended to influence legislative action or to solicit others to do so that is made at any time shall contain language that it was paid for in the name of who made the expenditure for the advertisement. Subdivision two c specifies what's to be included in the brief description of paid advertisement or advertising campaign totaling $1,000 or more made by the lobbying entity including any enacted or introduced bill or any issue featured in the advertisement or advertising campaign. Any specific person featured in the advertisement or advertising campaign, and whether the intent or content in the advertisement or advertising campaign offers an opinion of support, opposition, or neutrality on a bill issue or person. Additionally, a lobbying entity advertisement report does not need to be filed if they have already filed the necessary campaign finance reports and disclosures for the same advertisement or advertisement campaign. This is aimed at preventing duplicative reporting during election campaigns. Section three, the effective date is on passage. The committee heard from legislative council, office of legislative council, reporter of the bill, senate committee on government operations, director of elections and campaign finance, secretary of state's office, managing director Meadow Hill Consulting. On a straw poll of ten zero one, your committee on government operations and military affairs moves to concur with the senate and ask for your support.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have concurred in the senate proposal of amendment. Member from Pultely, on our notice calendar is the senate proposal of amendment to the house proposal of amendment on senate bill three twenty six which is an act relating to miscellaneous amendments to laws regarding to motor vehicles. Can you please offer us a motion to suspend our rules to take up senate bill three twenty six off the notice calendar for immediate consideration?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to take up off the notice calendar for immediate consideration s three two six.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Pulte moves that we suspend our rules to take up Senate Bill three twenty six off the notice calendar for immediate consideration. 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 take up senate bill three twenty six for immediate consideration. Senate Bill three twenty six is an act relating to miscellaneous amendments to laws relating to motor vehicles. The Senate concurred in the House proposal of amendment with a further proposal of amendment thereto that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Swanton.

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Good afternoon, madam speaker. Your house transportation committee heard and took testimony on the senate proposal amendment to the house proposal amendment of S three twenty six, the miscellaneous motor vehicles bill. I'm sorry, miscellaneous amendments to laws pertaining to motor vehicles. There were two largely technical areas related one to hands free related to hands free operation of cell phones related to commercial drivers. And there was another one related to mufflers related to motorcycles and the motorcycle vehicle annual inspection. And we heard testimony from the alleged counsel and the deputy commissioner of Department of Motor Vehicles. And on a straw poll of nine one one, your house transportation committee concurs with the senate proposal amendment to the house proposal amendment on s three twenty

[Speaker 0]: The question is shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment to the house proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have concurred in the senate proposal of amendment. Member from Pultely, can you please offer us a motion to suspend our rules to message our action on senate bill three twenty six to the senate forthwith?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to message our action to the senate on S326 forthwith.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Pulte moves that we suspend our rules to message our action on senate bill three twenty six 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 message our action on senate bill three twenty six to the senate forthwith. Member from Pulte on our notice calendar is the committee of conference report on house bill six forty two which is an act relating to youthful offender proceedings. Can you please offer us a motion to suspend rules to take up house bill six forty two off the notice calendar for immediate consideration?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to take up off the notice calendar for immediate consideration h six four two.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Pulte moves that we suspend our rules to take up house bill six forty two off the notice calendar for immediate consideration. 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 suspended rules to take up House Bill six forty two for immediate consideration. House bill six forty two is an act relating to youthful offender proceedings. The bill was referred to a committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two chambers. The committee of conference has met and considered the same recommends that the house adopt its report which is printed in today's calendar. Member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Ian Goodnow (Brattleboro)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. Before the body is the committee of conference report on H642 an act relating to youthful offender proceedings. This can be found in today's calendar on page 3,820. As you'll recall, Madam Speaker, the reason for the Committee of Conference Report Conference Conference was the difference position between the two bodies as it related to victim impact statements and their role in youthful offender proceedings. There are four instances of amendment to H. Six forty two as it's come out of the committee of conference, and I'll go through them each briefly. The first is found on page three eight two zero. This is a technical amendment to 33 VSA fifty two eighty five A2. And it is a technical edit to correct a cross reference. The second change can be found at the bottom of page thirty eight twenty one. This amends subsection e of the same section. It is also a technical edit that corrects another cross reference. Moving on, madam speaker, to page thirty eight twenty two. This is in section 33 VSA fifty two eighty eight, rights of victims in youthful offender proceedings. This is the the heart of the discussion in the committee of conference. There are two amendments. The first can be found to 33 BSA fifty two eighty eight subdivision a two. The committee of conference essentially reverted back to the house language in the first sentence of the subdivision. This means a victim has the right to attend and present a victim impact statement at both hearings. The hearing to consider youthful offender status and the disposition hearing. In the last sentence, the committee of conference cross referenced subsection B for clarity to streamline language. As this sentence refers to what a court shall do, which is explained in detail in that subsection. Moving on to the final subsection, madam speaker, that is can be found at the bottom of page thirty eight twenty two. This is 33 VSA fifty two eighty eight subsection b. The community conference again reverted back to the same house language with some clarity. This is consistent with the matching language that was amended before. And it it provides that the court shall ask if the victim is present and would like to be heard at both hearings. And again those are the hearings to consider the youthful offender status and the final disposition hearing. Madam Speaker, the vote out of the committee of conference was unanimous of six zero zero and we ask for the body support.

[Speaker 0]: The question is shall the house adopt the report of the committee of conference on its part? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and the report of the committee of conference is adopted. Now we'll turn to House Bill six zero six which is an act relating to firearms procedures. The bill passed the senate in concurrence with a proposal of amendment that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Williston.

[Representative Angela Arsenault (Williston)]: Thank you madam speaker. H six zero six came back to us from the senate in a very different form than when it left. It left as an act related to miscellaneous firearms procedures is now an act related to firearms relinquishment and storage procedures. So it's a strike all amendment and it replaces the provisions of the house version of the bill with the recommendations of the firearms surrender Compliance Working Group. That group was formed statutorily in the miscellaneous judiciary bill last year act 64. In its simplest terms, this is a firearm storage and safety bill. This bill improves the system for ensuring compliance with court ordered firearms surrender. It does not create any new restrictions on possession or ownership of firearms. So because it's new to this body, I'll just take a a couple minutes to walk through the bill very quickly. High level in section one, h six zero six consolidates firearms relinquishment procedures by moving the extreme risk protection order relinquishment authority from its current location in title 13 to the existing RFA relinquishment stat that's relief from abuse orders, relinquishment statute in the Department of Public Safety chapter of title 20. When a court orders relinquishment, current law permits the firearms to be stored with a law enforcement agency, or a firearms dealer. These are federally licensed firearm firearms dealers which you may hear me refer to as FFLs, or a third party designated by the owner. This bill h six zero six preserves those three alternatives, but additionally clarifies and creates safer process for the third party storage or relinquishment option. Namely by requiring the court to hold a hearing before firearms can be stored by a third party and at that hearing, third parties must agree to undergo a firearms background check and they must also sign an affidavit acknowledging receipt of the firearms and really making clear to the court that they understand the responsibility they're accepting. Section d adds an acknowledgment form that the defendant must sign. It just acknowledging the relinquishment of firearms has occurred and documenting who will be storing them. Moving to sub subsection g, we have the details for the procedures for law enforcement storage When when law enforcement agencies are not able to store firearms that are relinquished, they can work with an FFL to store those firearms and subsection g lays out, the procedures for that type that type of storage. We can move to subsection h which requires law enforcement agencies to make a reasonable effort to notify victims at least twenty four hours before relinquished firearms are released unless the plaintiff is present when the court, issues the order. This is a really important part of an important piece of the puzzle for a victim safety. Subsection I describes the procedures for release and sale of relinquished firearms including the the notice that's required to the owner. This is once an order has expired or is is no longer in effect, both law enforcement or if an FFL is permitted to sell the firearms but only after require providing or the required notice if those firearms are not picked up within ninety days of the end of the court order. Subsection j concerns immunity from civil and criminal liability. So current law provides such immunity to law enforcement agencies if there's any damage to firearms that are being stored. This bill extends that immunity to the FFLs provided that the FFLs are following the processes laid out in the bill. This is an important piece as well because we want to make it easier for federally license firearms dealers to participate in this effort to store store the firearms. So we want to ensure that FFLs have the same immunity as law enforcement. Subsection k describes the Department of Public Safety's role in establishing and implementing guidelines and standards for this relinquishment process. This bill adds a requirement that the Department of Public Safety adopt a policy that encourages FFLs to participate in providing storage. And in section two we have a requirement for the Department of Public Safety to direct the law enforcement advisory board to adopt a statewide to create a statewide model law enforcement policy addressing firearms access by persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms pursuant to relief from abuse orders, extreme risk protection orders or other legal prohibitions. And state and local law enforcement agencies will have until 06/30/2027 to adopt that model policy and if they don't, they are deemed to have adopted it. If they don't adopt their own policy, they're deemed to have adopted the LEAB model policy. Section three of the bill you'll see a bunch of, strike through that's because, in this section we're repealing the existing, firearms storage process for extreme risk protection orders because as I noted earlier, in this bill we're relocating all of those provisions to the same statute as the relief from abuse relinquishment, provisions. Just cleaning that up making it easier for for folks to find. Lastly, the title of the bill has changed as I said to an act relating to firearms relinquishment and storage procedures and section four of the bill provides that it takes effect on 07/01/2026. I just want to say just a couple notes about why this matters, why this is important. As I mentioned, we have there are a couple of cases in which a court may order that firearms be relinquished for safety reasons. And currently, we have the law that allows such an order, but we don't have a process or a framework or structure to support that law. So what six zero six does now is it really creates, builds that framework and then directs the law enforcement advisory board to build the policy to implement and support the framework. I will also mention that the working group that provided these recommendations was appropriately diverse and included members of, you know, from the law enforcement community, folks who work with survivors and victims of domestic and sexual violence. We also had one FFL, a federally licensed firearms dealer as a member of that working group, and then the group also consulted with a wide range of folks. So it really they've met five times, over the summer and fall. They did a lot of, collaborative work and on a straw poll of seven four, we voted our committee voted this bill out favorably, and we ask for your support.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, oh, member from Montpelier.

[Representative Kate McCann (Montpelier)]: Madam speaker, I was proud to stand in support of h six zero six as a public safety bill that would have addressed prohibiting devices that turn any gun into an automatic weapon. As a public high school teacher, it terrifies me that firearm injuries are the leading cause of death for children and teens and have been since 2020. Four thousand young people a year die in this country. 29 states have laws prohibiting these Glock switches, including our New England neighbors of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. I would have liked to see Vermont be braver, be better, and become the thirtieth state to prohibit these devices. I think it's the least we could have done to further the safety of our youngest Vermonters. I'm disappointed in what age six zero six has become but I will support what it is.

[Speaker 0]: The question is shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have concurred in the senate proposal of amendment. Will the house please stand at ease and can I see house leadership at the podium, please? The house is standing. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Members, there has been an amendment sent out on Senate Bill 193 and we have word from house education about house bill nine fifty five, the education transformation bill. And I know that there is an outstanding amendment on senate bill 71. So we're going to take a fifteen minute break to let the committees meet and come back here, to see if we can take action on those filing bills. So with that the house will stand