Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the House please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Before we pick up where we left off on Senate Bill 71, just want to share with you that the next bill that we will take up is Senate Bill 193 and after that we will finish with House Bill three thirteen. So like I said before we recess we had just heard the report of the committee on commerce and economic development on senate bill 71 which is an act relating to consumer data and online surveillance. Now the member from Bennington, representative Grier and others offer an amendment to the report of the committee on commerce and economic development that the first assistant clerk emailed to members at 11:29 today. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Bennington.

[Representative William "Will" Greer (Bennington)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The copies of the amendments are on the table if people don't have a paper copy. But this amendment to s 71, which is offered by me and several others in the body, removes a few keywords from the bill. The words being removed would strengthen the protection of Vermonter sensitive data. S 71 is written allows companies to sell your health data, your location, your immigration status, your sexual orientation, as well as many other identities and factors as long as they obtain your initial consent first. And now that would sound reasonable that they obtain your consent first, but the truth around consent is much more complex and much less transparent. It's not even the dozens of pages that individuals have to read through and more importantly understand in a terms of service agreement. It's that these agreements are ever evolving. It's a pre checked a it's pre checked

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member, I'm sorry to interrupt. We're having some trouble hearing you.

[Representative William "Will" Greer (Bennington)]: Oh. Am I holding

[Representative Emily Carris Duncan (Whitingham)]: the mic? Thank you. No? Okay.

[Representative William "Will" Greer (Bennington)]: Okay. Oh, up closer. Okay. There we go. Okay. Thank you for that. It's pre checked in the box during app setup, and it's the only way that many people can access the service that they need, and often there's not really a choice with that. I don't think, and I think that the others who signed on to this amendment do not think that that is meaningful consent. It is manufactured and limited consent and that it does not give transparency to the actual use of your information, and it enables actors to use your data for purposes you most likely do not consent to. This amendment takes a different approach, which is similar to what Maryland took when it became the first state in the nation to impose an outright ban on the sale of sensitive data. Maryland's law, which took effect last October, says that no matter what a consumer clicks, no matter what a company puts in a pop up, some categories of data are simply not for sale. And they recognize that protection should be universal as it comes when it comes to sensitive data. Maryland is not alone in this. Virginia passed in its legislature in March this year updates to its consumer data protection act, and several other states are actively considering similar bans during their legislative sessions this year. Vermont would be part of that growing awareness to the dangers of sensitive data being used openly and unrestricted in the marketplace. The question before us today is not whether sensitive data deserves special protection. I believe that everyone agrees that it does because we call it sensitive data for a reason. But the question is whether we trust the consent pop ups provide that protection, and I don't think that we do. These categories of data are not being used in the best interest of consumers. In fact, they have been used to discriminate and surveil individuals based on these characteristics. Consent should be transparent, but current practices are not willing to accept or change that model. And once someone's data is released, it can be put into the wrong hands. And once it's sold, there's no taking it back. So Vermont has already established or excuse me, has established strong data protection privacy protections, excuse me. And we think that this amendment will add to that good work, so we ask for your support of the amendment.

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

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Madam speaker, on a straw poll, the committee found the amendment unfavorable on a vote of nine two zero.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: So the question is, shall the report of the committee on commerce and economic development be amended as offered by the member from Bennington and others, member from Coventry.

[Representative Michael Marcotte (Coventry)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wholeheartedly agree with the presenter of the amendment that we should do whatever we can to protect Vermonters sensitive data. And as he talked about Virginia and other states are contemplating or have changed their data privacy laws to update and reflect that. I want to remind the body that we do not have a data privacy statute as of right now. We are attempting again to craft a bill that walks a fine line. Two years ago, we crafted a extremely strong data privacy bill that passed this chamber, the other chamber, did not pass the administration, passed the governor. And we were unable to uphold the veto. I'm hoping that we were not put in that position again. We have the ability to move s 71 as amended by the House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. That will hopefully get through the other chamber and I believe we'll be able to get through to the governor as well. By adopting this amendment, I think our chances are slim to none. And so I think we have to think very hard of what do we really want. Do we want to start a basis for data privacy in the state of Vermont to protect Vermonters and to protect Vermont businesses? Or are we going to take this chance that we lose this again? That's our choice. So I ask you to follow the lead of your committee on commerce and economic development and vote no on this amendment. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the report of the committee on commerce and economic development be amended as offered by the member from Bennington and others. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The nays appear to have it. The nays do have it and you have declined to amend the report of the committee on commerce and economic development. Now the question is shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on commerce and economic development. Are you ready for the question? Member from Norwich.

[Representative Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. May I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

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

[Representative Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: I want to apologize Madam Speaker. I think I may have met someone who speaks more quickly than I do, and I did not catch one of the explanations, and I want to make sure I understand it. Looking at page thirty seven seventy nine, it's the section on applicability. I'm trying to understand how you arrived at the applicability thresholds.

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Thank you, member. So the applicability threshold is 35,000 like collecting the data of 35,000 Vermonters or more per year, and additionally, thousand Vermonters worth of data when it comes to sensitive data, and 3,000 when it comes to selling personal data. We originally, as far as kind of versions of this bill that were in committee, the threshold has changed several times. And the most recent version of the threshold and the latest drafts were based off of the bill that Connecticut passed in 2025, which went into effect July 1 of It goes into effect 07/01/2026, which had a threshold of 35,000, which they had updated down from 100,000, and then they have a zero threshold for the sale of personal data and a zero threshold for sensitive data. We were, the number 3,000 is arbitrary. We were, that was given to us by business witnesses. Yeah.

[Representative Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Could you help me understand? I'm trying to understand the reasoning for the thresholds. Can you help explain to me or maybe give examples of who might fall into each of those threshold categories? What kind of businesses are we talking about here?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Yeah. So the as far as the 35,000 or

[Representative Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: I would like examples of all three of the All

[Representative Michael Marcotte (Coventry)]: three

[Representative Thomas "Tom" Burditt (West Rutland)]: of them.

[Representative Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Yeah, one through three.

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: So, I don't know that there's entities that would fall into all three of them. I think the reason for the lower thresholds on the sale of personal data and the processing of sensitive data would be that there's some that don't fall, that aren't actually capturing 35,000, and the sensitivity or the, you know, the vulnerability of sensitive data deserves a lower threshold and the same for entities that are selling the personal data. We so that the examples that we got for sale of sensitive data that fit under the reason we were given the 3,000 as well as the, yeah, the sensitivity on the sale for that 3,000 number was accountants, lawyers, nonprofits. So the definition of sale also means sharing. So, we were told that there's nonprofits that essentially sell or share things like donor lists or their member lists or their participant lists and the same with trade associations that might have a membership of businesses that then they sell or share with members. And so that was the Those were I think I'm catching everything that we were told as far as reasoning for that.

[Representative Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Can can you give examples of who provided testimony for those latter categories and how those thresholds or eligibility for those thresholds will be verified?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Yeah. I mean the so the the number on the record, the 3,000 number came from the Vermont Chamber of Commerce.

[Representative Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Thank you. And I'd like to thank the Commerce Committee for working on this incredibly important issue.

[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 commerce and economic development member from Montpelier.

[Representative Kate McCann (Montpelier)]: Madam speaker, may I please interrogate the presenter of the bill?

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

[Representative Kate McCann (Montpelier)]: There are seven pages of exemptions to this bill from pages 16 to 22, speaker. Can you explain how those exemptions were decided on?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: So the exemptions in general are so those have gone through over the last four years, three years in particular, because they're largely ones that we've been working on the last couple years. And so, in the essence of exemptions that are created for entities to be not have to comply with this law are generally that they are falling into categories of doing business in a way that is already regulated. The hope in most bills is that like it's already being regulated by, in this case, state and or federal regulations that cover or seek to cover the things that I guess the otherwise things that we are regulating in this bill. We're exempting them because they have coverage in one way or another otherwise from existing regulation.

[Representative Kate McCann (Montpelier)]: Thank you. And madam speaker, there specifically are 11 out of 18 exemptions that seem to cover health care related data. 17 looks like it is completely exempts all health care providers in Vermont. This bill has specific consumer health data sections that it looks like health care entities are exempt from. Can you tell me why we are exempting this sector?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Yes. When it comes to healthcare entities, a lot of the 11 out of I think the 18 you said are do are largely because there are state and or federal health related protections usually related to HIPAA. Amber, can you remind me of the number that you specifically called out?

[Representative Kate McCann (Montpelier)]: And Madam Speaker, it looks like the rest of the exemptions largely fall under banking and insurance entities. Can you tell me why we are exempting this sector?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Sorry, remember, I got help from my seatmate on the number I was asking for.

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: So

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: 17 is healthcare providers and facilities. That largely so That was largely due to receiving information and testimony and letters from a coalition of healthcare organizations in the state that basically that exemption is trying to say that if they are having data that they are treating as if it was covered by HIPAA, then they would be exempt. We had a lot of questioning around things that this might not cover like chatbots, websites, AI, and things like that, and the entities largely just said that they are already dealing with HIPAA and complying with this would be difficult and they're already doing their best as far as trying to protect the data. I guess I need the next question again.

[Representative Kate McCann (Montpelier)]: Sure. Madam Speaker, it looks like the rest of the exemptions largely fall under banking and insurance entities. Can you tell me why we're exempting this sector?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: So, we spent a bunch of time last year and even the year before with legislative council looking at the There's a chart that legislative council constructed that was all of the state and federal privacy laws when it came to banking insurance industry in order for us to try to identify any loopholes. Generally, those exemptions, we've found that generally those entities are already covered by a mix of state and federal regulations, and there was one change at the last minute around one of them that we didn't quite have that testimony on.

[Representative Kate McCann (Montpelier)]: Thank you, madam speaker and I thank the member from Bradford.

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

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Thank you, madam speaker. So in addition to serving as a citizen legislator, I work at From Porch Forum, a local family owned public benefit corporation here in Vermont. And one of the things that makes me really proud to work there is the company's deep commitment to Vermonters data privacy. Is not in the surveillance business. We don't profile members or use targeted advertising and we don't sell member data under any circumstances. FPF would be considered a controller under this bill which would be an entity subject to its restrictions and we strongly stood in support of the original version of the bill. I've been following the bill really closely through its development. Have a few questions to help understand the changes that were made in this strike all amendment. May I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

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

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Thank you. So madam speaker, I have a question about the section related to duties of controllers. It's on page three seven eight seven. And specifically, I'm trying to understand a one and a two when it comes to data collection and processing. This section feels really important. Can you explain a bit more about how it functions?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: So this is what is usually shorthand referred to as data minimization or data min. So an entity shall limit the collection to what is reasonable and disclosed in a privacy policy. The entity should not process a collected data for a material new purpose unless they get consent.

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Okay. So, I'm trying to understand the consent part. If if I'm understanding correctly, theoretically, if I'm a company collecting people's data, does that mean I could essentially bury a random disclosed purpose in a 100 page privacy policy agreement that no one clicks through in order to do almost whatever I want with someone's data?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Yes. That I would read it that way.

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Did the committee hear any testimony that that's an effective approach?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: So I would say testimony fell into two camps. One that was largely that businesses know how to comply with this and that they see that as effective. And then I would say the other camps were advocates who would say that that is not a meaningful, it will lead to consent fatigue and doesn't meaningfully protect consumers.

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Okay. Thank you. Well, I guess, you know, I just ask members to reflect on when was the last time you actually read the full privacy policy of a service you signed up for and as someone who's actually written the terms of service and privacy policy in the past, this raises major red flags for me. It takes a huge amount of work to make policies accessible and transparent to people without a law degree or specialization in this area. Conversely, it sounds like it would be pretty easy to bury this information while still following the letter of the laws written, but I just have one more question. Did did the committee feel like the provided language would be effective at curbing abusive data practices and how was this decided upon?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: I would say the committee went back and forth on this probably more than other sections as it's largely considered the heart of a data privacy bill. So this version we

[House Reading Clerk]: had

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: several different versions over the course of the last couple drafts. Friday night, we had discussed as a committee changes to a version that we found acceptable, which did not have the disclosed purpose. It did not rely on the disclosed purpose. And then we when we took the votes on a final draft, the language was not that which we had discussed

[Representative William "Will" Greer (Bennington)]: as a committee.

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Okay. Were there sorry. Just to be clear, was there like a specific entity that pushed for that or where the language came from?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: A member of the committee asked specifically why and what entity led to that change and it was the chamber of commerce.

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Are there to your knowledge big tech corporations that are members of that entity?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Yes. I checked last week and there are.

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Thanks. Okay. I thank the member. So I am deeply concerned that we can and should be doing much more here. Taking the approach of requiring disclosure rather than an outright ban on abuse of Vermonters data, cutting out stronger enforcement tools, riddling language with carve outs and loopholes adds up to weekend bill that I worry gives the appearance of taking action while still allowing for big tech companies to continue to extract resources and wreak havoc on communities here in Vermont and across the country. I am very grateful for the committee's hard work and commitment to taking up this important issue. At the same time, in honor of the Vermonters whose best interest we were elected to represent and in resistance to the big tech interests that influence this bill, I will be voting no.

[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 commerce and economic development member from Burlington?

[House Reading Clerk]: Madam speaker, I'd like to move that when we take this vote, take it by role.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Burlington request that when the vote is taken, it be taken by rolls. Member sustained. The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. The question is, shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on commerce and economic development? Are you ready for the question? Member from Jericho.

[Unidentified Representative from Jericho]: Thank you, madam speaker. This is a brand new concept for Vermont. We don't have a bill like this on the books yet. We have been working really hard to get this bill, a bill in this vein, a bill that protects the privacy, the data of the consumers of Vermont. And we worked incredibly hard this session. We took a month straight of testimony only on this bill this year, not including last year, not including previous biennia. To get to this point, it required a lot of compromises. There are people on both edges of this debate that are not happy. There are people who want more protections. There are people who want fewer protections and business to be able to do what it does today, which is have no rules around this or very few unless they operate in other states. The way it works right now is that consumers, people who live in Connecticut, for example, when they come to Vermont, they have more protections of their data than Vermonters do. I'm going to say that again. When folks from Connecticut come to visit Vermont, they have more rights than Vermonters do when it comes to their data and their privacy around that. We can fix that by passing this bill. We cannot put forward the strongest and best bill in the country. We can't beat California. California has a whole division that protects the privacy the data privacy of all of their consumers. They're a much bigger state. I think they're the fifth largest economy in the world. We're tiny Vermont. We can we have to start. This is where we start. And I am grateful to the committee for everybody's hard work. I'm grateful for this to this body for being willing to do this today. And I am I know that Vermonters will be better after this law is on the books.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you ready for the question? Never from Coventry.

[Representative Michael Marcotte (Coventry)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Just wanna be clear that within the bill, we have a section that talks about the privacy notice. It's on page thirty seven eighty nine of today's calendar. There's subsection c, subsection one. A controller shall provide consumers with a reasonably accessible, clear and meaningful privacy notice that includes the categories of personal data processed by the controller, the purpose for processing personal data and a description of the processing pursuant to subdivision A1 of this section. A description of the means established pursuant to subsection D of this section for consumers to submit requests to exercise their consumer rights pursuant to this subchapter, including a description of how consumers may exercise a consumer's right under subsection 2415d a of this subchapter, appeal a controller's decisions with regard to request to exercise such rights, the categories of personal data that the cat the controller sells to third parties, if any, the categories of third party parties third parties if any to which the controller sells personal data, a clear and conspicuous disclosure of any, processing of personal data for purposes of targeted advertising or sale of personal data to a third party for purposes of targeted advertising. There are others that continue on. We're not passing a bill that's going to bury the checkbox for you to opt in. It's going to be very clear and very concise. Your House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development would never pass a bill that would bury those rights so consumers have no idea what they what they are. You can be assured that consumers will know and will be able to exercise their rights. 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 commerce and economic development. Are you ready for the question? Member from Whitingham.

[Representative Emily Carris Duncan (Whitingham)]: Thank you, madam speaker. In our committee, in the committee of commerce and economic development when we worked on this bill, A lot of the work centered around striking a balance and ensuring that we have the capacity, our Vermont businesses have the capacity to continue serving their customers. A lot of many emerging small businesses, nonprofits build their businesses on larger platforms. They are also customers of these larger platforms. The data that they hold can be accessed in some cases by those larger platforms. The data that is held may not be accurate. It might be old. Many of those larger platforms are creating profiles and inferences to sell more products. We heard testimony on the effectiveness, the questionable effectiveness of targeted advertising, which also leaves our businesses in a precarious position of trying to carry out their work and ensuring that they're able to get the customers that they need, but potentially not having that be so. There are a lot of risks that we've slid into over the years. We have data that's used for not for something other than its intended purpose in order to make decisions on whether we can get houses or cars or any myriad of number of things that help contribute to the American dream. We've worked really hard to protect the data of children. We've worked really hard to protect the data of those most vulnerable. It's really critical that we get something that broadly protects our data. I'm really proud of the continued dedication and work of my colleagues. Privacy is a truly Vermont value, and I look forward to continuing to hone our privacy policies as we go forward.

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

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

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Austin of Colchester. Yes. Bailey of Hyde Park. Yes. Bartholomew of Heartland. Yes. Bartley of Fairfax. Yes. Rebecca of Winooski. Byrong of Vergens. Yes. Bishop of Colchester. Yes. Black of Essex. Yes. Bloomley of Burlington. Yes. Boston of Westminster. Bosch of Clarendon. I'm sorry, Bosch of Clarendon. Yes. Thank you. Putnam Barry City.

[Representative Emily Carris Duncan (Whitingham)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Boyden of Cambridge. Yes. Brady of Williston. Yes. Branagan of Georgia. Bergama of Saint Albans Town?

[Representative Kate McCann (Montpelier)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Burditt at West Rutland? Yes. Burkhardt South Burlington? Yes. Burrows of West Windsor?

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Burditt Cabot? Campbell, St. Johnsbury. Yes. Canfield of Fair Haven. Yes. Carris Duncan of Whitingham. Yes. Casey Montpelier. Yes. Casey Hubbardton. Yes. Chapin East Montpelier. Charlton and Chester. Christie of Hartford. Gina Galfetti. Cole of Hartford. Yes. Colin and Cornwall.

[Representative Michael Marcotte (Coventry)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Cooper panel.

[Representative Thomas "Tom" Burditt (West Rutland)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Corcoran of Bennington. Critchlow of Colchester? Yes. Demar of Venusburg? Dickinson of Saint Almightstown? Yes. Deborah Debbie Dolan Yes. Dolan of Essex Junction?

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Dolgin of Saint Johnsbury?

[Representative Emily Carris Duncan (Whitingham)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Donahue of Northfield? Duke of Burlington. Durfee of Shaftsbury. Eastes of Guildford. Emmons of Springfield. Feltus of Linden. Galfetti of Barrytown. Garifano of Essex. Yes. Gorman of Rockingham. Yes. Goodnight, Branagan. Yes. Ghostland of Northfield. Yes. Brandon Gajaricco. Yes. Greer Bennington. Greg Warfarefield. Tango. Berkshire. Yes. Harper of Glover. Prabby of Castleton.

[Representative Mary A. Morrissey (Bennington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Hedrick of Burlington.

[House Reading Clerk]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Hickley of Lowell. Yes. Holcomb Norwich. Yes. Cooper Randolph.

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Putt Nevesic Junction. Yes. Howard or Rutland City. Howland or Rutland Town. Yes. Point Of Hartford. Yes. Hunter Manchester. Yes. James Jim Manchester.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Kasenska Burke. Yes. Keyser, Rutland City. Yes. Kimball Woodstock. Yes. Kupner, Burlington. Yes. Corcoranizer, Brattleboro. Yes. President of South Burlington. Labour Morgan. Lallie Schauburn. Yes. Alona South Burlington.

[Representative Michael Marcotte (Coventry)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Lamont of Morristown. Yes. Laresha Franklin. Lipsky of Stowe. Yes. Logan of Burlington.

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Long and Newfane.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Long and Melton. Yes. Leaders of Lincoln.

[Representative Karen Lueders (Lincoln)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Bruno of St. Albans City. Maguire of Bretland City. Malay Pittsford. Mark out of Coventry, Asana Thetford, McKenna Mapillier, McCoy Pultney, McGillard Burport, Micklas and Milton, Yes. Mollie of Callis. Many are South Burlington. Morgan Ela Milton. Morgan Emma Milton. Morris of Springfield.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Underhill)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Morris of Bennington. Or of Weston?

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Roeke and Putney? Yes. Nelson of Derby?

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Nielsen of Brandon? Niagara Of Bennington? Yes. North Of Ferrisburg? Liza Volkhardt, New Jersey South Burlington, O'Brien Tunbridge, OD Burlington, Oliver Sheldon, Olson of Starksboro, Page in Newport City. Parsons Newbury. Pezzo of Colchester.

[Representative Gayle Pezzo (Colchester)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Pinsonault Dorset. Yes. Poucher Heinzburg. Yes. Powers in Waterford. Yes. Priestly Bradford.

[Representative William "Will" Greer (Bennington)]: No.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Bridget of Pollock.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Quinby of Linden. Yes. Rachelson of Burlington. Sekhardt to Randolph.

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Shy Middlebury.

[Unidentified Representative from Jericho]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Scalia Burlington.

[Representative Mary A. Morrissey (Bennington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Sheldon and Middlebury. Yes. Cecilia Dover. Susie Berry Town. Yes. Southworth Of Walden. Yes. Square Of Underhill. Yes. Steady Milton. Stevens Waterbury.

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Stone Of Burlington. Sweeney Shelburne.

[Representative Shawn Sweeney (Shelburne)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Taylor Mendon. Thomas Tomlunowski.

[Representative Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: No. I like to say.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Tory Martown. Walker Swanton, Wassa Zacchaeberry City, Waters Avenue, Charlotte, Wells Of Brownington, White Waytsfield, Winterbethel, Winterbodlow, Waterbury?

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Yacoboni, Morristown?

[Representative Kate McCann (Montpelier)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Rebecca Winooski, Boston of Westminster, Christie of Hartford, Gina of Burlington, Hartwell of Glover, Howard of Relton City, Crescent Of South Burlington, Luna of Saint Albans City, McGuire of Relton City, Meniere of South Burlington, Morganella of Milton, O'Brien of Tunbridge, Olson of Starksboro, Parsons of Newbury, Richardson of Burlington, Stone of Burlington, Torreymore Town.

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

[Representative Angela Arsenault (Williston)]: Thank you. Madam speaker, I am proud to vote yes on s 71, and I wish to extend particular gratitude to the retiring chair of the committee for his leadership on this issue. I know that this is just the beginning of our work to protect all Vermonters from the increasingly predatory practices of advertisers, marketers, and big tech. Your data is yours to own and keep.

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

[Unidentified Representative from Jericho]: I am proud to support s 71, a bill that gives Vermonters the ability to opt out of data collection, correct data that is inaccurate, and delete data in certain circumstances. We worked with advocates and the business community to craft an act that will work for all of Vermont.

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

[Representative Michael Morgan (Milton)]: Madam speaker, this bill is not perfect, but right now there are no protections for Vermonters. This bill balances a Vermonters right to control data while ensuring our Vermont businesses are not at a competitive disadvantage. This bill does not take effect until January 2028, giving us eighteen more months to work out issues.

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

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: I voted no, not as a criticism of my colleagues, but as a criticism of what big tech's lobbying does to undermine the democratic process. What happened on this bill in Vermont follows a playbook. Big oil used it, big tobacco used it, and now big tech is using it. Flood the building, astroturf the business community, spread misinformation, threaten veto pressure, and wait for the legislature to tire. Some of the same big tech lobbyists who pulled on strings to shape our bill are shaping the dangerously weak federal bill. Our bill will be weaponized to claim that Vermonters support weak privacy legislation as a standard. It will be used to undermine the proposed legislation of our neighboring New England states. The thing is this fight is not like trying to interrupt big tobacco's reach. The baseline from which we are trying to regulate technology is that everyone at every age is reliant on big tech. Our governments, our businesses, our media, and the very fabric of how we exist all depend on big tech. We are not getting ahead of this. We are devastatingly behind. This bill will not change big tech's harmful business practices. It will not protect consumers. It breaks the status quo of mass data collection and abuse into law. To my fellow committee members, thank you for the many hours and incredible work you put into this bill. I know I'm not alone in wishing the outcome had been different. This house passed a very strong privacy law two years ago, but unfortunately, Big Tech's power has influence, weakening it to the point that I must regretfully vote against it. I hope this body will revisit the issue in future sessions and give Vermonters the privacy protections they so badly need and deserve. To everyone watching, advocates, researchers, legislators, and other states, fellow Vermonters at home, do not let this bill be seen as a ceiling. It is a cellar floor. To the issue experts, we are in trouble. We need you to be part of the process. We need you to educate legislators and members of the public, not just in Vermont, but in state houses all over the country. We need you to testify and to be at the table earlier and in larger numbers than the industry has brought against us because the next fight is artificial intelligence and the resources that float into state the state house for this bill will look modest compared to what is coming for us. To Vermonters, this is your data. These are your rights. Corporations profiting from your information have had a presence in this building that you deserve to match. Show up, be loud, demand better.

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

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Madam speaker, I strongly support data privacy protections for Vermonters. However, I voted no on this bill due to concerns with the removal of numerous key protections. Big tech is built on a business model of surveillance, behavioral manipulation, and extraction from local communities. I won't bend to their aggressive lobbying. I put Vermonters first, not tech billionaires.

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: I voted yes because it's imperative that we protect from owners data privacy and this is a solid step forward.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my from Burlington, you may.

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Thank you. I stand to say that this bill is not the result of the big tech lobby. It is a practical and measured bill that sets a stage for us to keep improving in the future and provides real protections for Vermonters.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 129. Those voting no, three. The ayes have it and you have proposed to the senate to amend the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Member from Pultely, can you please offer us a motion to suspend our rules to place senate bill 71 in all remaining stages of passage?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to place s 71 in all remaining stages of passage.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Pulte moves that we suspend our rules to place senate bill 71 in all remaining stages of passage. 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 place senate bill 71 in all remaining stages of passage. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk]: S 71, an act relating to consumer data privacy and online surveillance.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill in concurrence with proposal of amendment. Member from Pulte, can you please offer us a motion to suspend our rules to message our action senate bill 71 to the senate forthwith?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to message our actions on s 71 to the senate forthwith.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Pultely moves that we suspend our rules to message our action on senate bill 71 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 our rules to message our action on senate bill 71 to the senate forthwith. Now we take up Senate Bill 193 which is an act relating to establishing a forensic facility for certain criminal justice involved persons. 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 South Burlington, representative will speak for the committee and then carrying an appropriation the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the report of the committee on judiciary be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Underhill, representative Squirrel will speak for that committee and it is my understanding that the member from Underhill will be asking leave of house to withdraw the committee report. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk]: S one ninety three, an act relating to establishing a forensic facility for certain criminal justice involved persons.

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

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, before I get into report on the underlying bill, just a preview that the underlying bill will have sections that put the forensic facility into place that would be starting later with essentially a permanent forensic facility. You're gonna hear later an amendment from representative from our our vice chair of the committee is going to be presenting an amendment that will talk about what's gonna happen in the interim while we're waiting for this forensic facility to be put in place. So with that, I I will start with the bill that starts at page thirty seven zero six of today's calendar. So s one ninety three would require the agency of human services which I'll refer to as AHS to establish a new facility to house and treat certain individuals, those who have been charged with a serious crime and found incompetent to stand trial and those who have been tried for a serious crime and found not guilty by reason of insanity. I'll first explain more about these two conditions. Both of these legal issues concern a defendant's mental health status in connection with a criminal defense or offense, I mean. But the two concepts are very different. A defendant's competency to stand trial concerns the defendant's mental status at the time of the trial. A defendant is incompetent to stand trial if they are unable to understand the criminal charges or are unable to participate meaningfully in their own defense. Competency is a threshold issue that the court has to resolve before trial. If a defendant's competency is called into question, criminal proceedings cannot continue unless the court finds the defendant competent. A person found incompetent to stand trial can be tried if and when the person regains competency. The insanity defense on the other hand concerns the defendant's mental health status at the time the offense was committed. A person is not guilty by reason of insanity if as a result of a mental illness the person either cannot understand that their conduct is criminal or cannot conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. A defendant making this claim typically admits to having committed the act but argues that they cannot be held criminally responsible for it because of their mental health status at the time of the offense. If a person is found not guilty by reason of insanity at trial, it is a complete defense to the criminal charge. The person is not guilty and cannot be charged with the crime again. In either case, if the defendant has been found to be either incompetent to stand trial or insane at the time of the offense, the court needs to conduct additional proceedings. Under these circumstances, existing law requires the court to determine whether as a result of mental illness, the defendant is a danger to themselves or others. If the court finds that the person is a danger because of mental illness, it must order that the person be committed to the Department of Mental Health for treatment. If the person's incompetency or insanity is the result of intellectual disability, the person may be committed to the Department of Aging and Independent Living or DAIL. The forensic facility created in S-one hundred ninety three would fill a crucial gap in our system. By forensic facility, I mean a facility where mental health and the criminal law converge. A forensic facility or program focuses on treating and assessing individuals involved in the criminal justice system who have a mental illness or other cognitive disability. Treatment is provided to try to restore a person's competency and to address their forensic risk which means the chance that an individual will engage in future violent anti social or criminal behavior. Currently, Vermont does not have a facility or program where potentially dangerous individuals who are incompetent to stand trial can receive appropriate treatment to restore their competency in a therapeutic setting where public safety is ensured nor do we have a facility where those who are incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity can receive treatment to address their forensic risks in a therapeutic setting where public safety is insured. S one ninety three will put Vermont on the path toward addressing these needs. Five committees had eyes have had eyes on S one eighty three in the house and have taken extensive testimony. The judiciary committee and the corrections and institutions committee were the primary authors of the version of S 193 before the house today. But the language also reflects the insightful input of the committee on healthcare, the committee on human services and the appropriations committee. I will now walk through sections one through four and section eight of the bill then I will yield to the member from Springfield to report on the remaining sections. Sections one and three address who can be committed to a forensic facility, the process for committing individuals to the facility and for keeping them there and the paths individuals can take to end their commitment to the facility. The house judiciary committee focused on court processes as well as ensuring due process and equal protection for individuals who qualify for commitment to a forensic facility in Vermont. The sections to be covered by the member from Springfield address the operation of the facility and where such a facility may be located among other issues. So turning to section one. Section one provides that it is the intent of the General Assembly to have the Secretary of AHS establish a forensic facility for the competency restoration, evaluation, stabilization, treatment and care of certain criminal justice involved individuals. It specifies that the general assembly does not intend for the Department of Corrections to operate or staff the forensic facility with the limited exception that DOC may provide certain security services. Section two establishes forensic facility procedures for defendants who are found incompetent to stand trial and requires the facility to provide competency restoration services. Under subsection a, criminal defendants must be transferred to the facility if they meet four criteria. That they have been charged with an offense punishable by a life sentence, Either they are being held without bail or the release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. Either they are not currently hospitalized under the current system for treatment of a dangerous mental illness or they are subject to an order of commitment to Dale and are not being detained in a correctional facility pending trial and they have been found not competent to stand trial. The number of individuals who would meet these criteria is small with perhaps up to six individuals annually. Subsection B requires that a person admitted to the facility must be evaluated for competency every six months and whenever the AHS medical director determines either that the person is likely competent to stand trial or that it is unlikely that the person's competency can be restored. The court must hold a hearing after any evaluation for competency and if the court finds that the person is now competent, it immediately notifies the state's attorney and the person's attorney so that the trial may proceed. If the person is still not competent, the court will order continued competency restoration treatment at the facility. Under subsection C, any party may request that a competency evaluation include an opinion on whether the person's competency can be restored. If such a request is made, the person must be evaluated for restorability to competence prior to the hearing. If the court finds that the person's competency can be restored, it will order continued competency restoration treatment at the facility and if the court finds that the person's competency cannot be restored, it must hold another hearing within sixty days to determine whether the person is dangerous or if not dangerous can be released. Prior to the hearing on the danger posed by the individual, medical staff at the facility must conduct a forensic risk assessment. The results must be provided to the parties and the court. The court has three options at the hearing. Order continued commitment of the person to the forensic facility, order the person released under supervision, or order the person committed to Dale. First, if the state's attorney demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the person has a qualifying condition that would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person if they were released, the court must order continued commitment of the person. The term qualifying condition is defined later in the bill in section five to mean any condition whether mental, congenital or traumatic, however acquired or developed or any other circumstance that resulted in the person being determined incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. The court must order treatment of the person in the least restrictive setting consistent with the person's forensic risk assessment and treatment needs and this treatment may include appropriate supervision and supervised housing in a location other than the forensic facility. If continued commitment is ordered, the person's commitment must be reviewed every twelve months and at any time that the AHS medical director determines that the person no longer has a qualifying condition that upon the person's release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. Continued commitment would only be ordered after the review if the state's attorney demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the individual would create this risk. So the second option is if the state's attorney does not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence at any hearing that the person has a qualifying condition that upon the person's release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person, then the person must be released on supervision. In that case, the court must release the person under a regimen of medical, psychiatric or psychological care or treatment including supervision and housing deemed appropriate by the medical director. The court must order as an explicit condition of release that the person comply with the prescribed care regimen and any other conditions appropriate to protect the public. The court must review the person's supervised release every twelve months. In addition, the court must make a reasonable effort to notify the victim in advance of any release hearing and to permit the victim to be heard if the victim is available. The third option for the court if the person's competency cannot be restored is to commit the person to the commissioner of Dale. This must be done if the court makes the findings required by Act two forty eight for treatment of persons with intellectual disabilities involved in the criminal justice system. Dale is required to find an appropriate designated program for the person but if Dale is unable to immediately provide appropriate care in a designated program, the court may order continued treatment at the forensic facility for a period not to exceed one year and for good cause shown, the court may extend that period by an additional six months. The continued treatment orders are reviewed by the court every ninety days and the court will vacate them and order the person committed to Dale when it finds that a designated program is available. The commissioner can also inform the court at any time that a program is available and in that case, the person would be committed to Dale. Under subsections d and e unless otherwise released, the person remains in the facility until either the person's competency is restored or there is a final disposition of the criminal charges. While at the facility, the person must be provided with competency restoration services according to a plan approved by the medical services director. Subsection f permits the restoration services to be provided at the forensic facility or at another location as part of a discharge plan. Subsection G requires the appropriate AHS department either the Department of Mental Health, Department of Mental of Department of Health or Dale to actively monitor compliance with orders permitting the person's release. The appropriate department must also immediately have the person returned to the facility if the AHS medical director has reason to believe that due to a qualifying condition, the person's continued release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. If the person is returned to the facility after having been released, the court must hold a hearing and at that hearing the state's attorney has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the person has a qualifying condition that if the person's released would create the substantial risk. If the state's attorney meets its burden, the court will order the person readmitted to the facility for continued treatment. If the state's attorney does not meet its burden, the court will order that the person remain released on conditions. Subsection h describes the findings a court must make before approving treatment with involuntary medication. The requirements that are set forth are based on the United States Supreme Court's decision in the case of Cell v United States. Subsection I provides that whenever an evaluation is required of the person's competency or restorability, the defense is also entitled to conduct its own independent evaluation and introduce results at the hearing. So before moving to section three of the bill, I just want to summarize really what section two provides. It addresses individuals who have been charged with a life offense such as murder or aggravated sexual assault, who have been found incompetent to stand trial and usually are being held by DOC in prison pending trial or ongoing litigation regarding their competency or placement outside prison. Individuals may be held in this situation for months or years until eventually due process requires that they be released. During the time they are held, they are not receiving the treatment that they would receive in a forensic facility. They are not being restored to competency so that they can have their day in court. They're not having their forensic risk addressed. The current situation is doing a disservice to these individuals and importantly, it is doing a disservice to victims of such crimes who are having no sense of closure and it is also doing a disservice to public safety. S one ninety three will significantly improve the situation and it is well past time that we move towards having a forensic path for these individuals. So moving to section three of the bill, this deals with a distinct but related topic. Misdemeanor cases that have remained inactive for long periods of time after a defendant was found incompetent to stand trial. Section three provides that when a person has been found incompetent to stand trial for a misdemeanor offense, the charges must be dismissed without prejudice if the case remains inactive for a continuous period of time equal to or greater than the maximum sentence for the offense. Dismissals not required if the court finds that dismissing the case would be contrary to the interests of justice. If the offense is a more serious misdemeanor, the court must hold a hearing before dismissing the case and make a reasonable effort to notify the victim and permit the victim to be heard if the victim is available. Turning to section four of the bill. The forensic facility will also be used for secure treatment of persons charged with an offense punishable by life sentence who are found not guilty by reason of insanity. And for brevity, if one can believe that I have brevity in this report, I will use the term NGRI for not guilty by reason of insanity. So remember, a person is NGRI if as a result of a mental illness at the time of their offense, the person either could not understand that their conduct is criminal or could not conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. Section four establishes procedures for NGRI individuals that are similar to the procedures just described for placement of persons not competent to stand trial. Section A of section four requires a person to be committed to the facility after being found NGRI of an offense punishable by a life sentence. Subdivision two expressly provides that the committing court retains jurisdiction over the person which is necessary because unlike competency proceedings, there's no longer a pending case after an NGRI finding. Under subsection b, within sixty days after the person is admitted to the facility, the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the person should remain at the facility or be released. Prior to the hearing, a forensic risk assessment of the person must be conducted and the results must be provided to the parties in the court. The state's attorney has the burden at the hearing of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the person is suffering from a qualifying condition that upon the person's release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. If the court finds that the state's attorney did not meet its burden, the court must release the person under supervision. If the state's attorney did did meet its burden, the court must order the person's commitment to the forensic facility to continue until the court finds that the person is no longer suffering from a qualifying condition that upon the person's release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. Subsection D requires the commissioner of corrections to provide adequate care and individualized treatment for those committed to the facility taking into account the least restrictive conditions applicable. Subsection D also requires the committed person to be properly examined by qualified personnel in order to provide a proper evaluation, diagnosis and treatment plan. Subsection E requires that the person must be reevaluated periodically after being committed. The first evaluation occurs six months after commitment. The second occurs three years after the first and thereafter reevaluations occur every five years. Reevaluations must also be done anytime the AHS medical director certifies that the person is no longer suffering from a qualifying condition that upon the person's release would create the substantial risk. In addition, the person may petition for a reevaluation at any time at least ninety days after the original commitment order provided that the petition may only be filed once during each reevaluation period. Whichever party files the petition if the court finds that the person still suffering from a qualifying condition that upon the person's release would create the substantial risk, the court must deny the petition in order continued commitment. On the other hand, if the court finds that the person is no longer suffering from such a condition, the court must release the person under regimen of medical psychiatric or psychological care or treatment including supervision and housing deemed appropriate by the medical director. The court must order as an explicit condition of release that the person comply with the prescribed care regimen and any other conditions appropriate to protect the public. Subsection F establishes the same process for monitoring released NGRI persons as was described earlier for persons not competent to stand trial. Subsection g requires the court to make a reasonable effort to notify the victim in advance of any hearing and to permit the victim to be heard if the victim is available. So jumping to section eight of the bill, the section simply provides that the rules of evidence do not apply in competency restoration proceedings or in proceedings for granting or revoking conditional release from a forensic facility. I now yield to the member from Springfield.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from South Burlington yields to the member from Springfield.

[Representative Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: Madam speaker, I hope I'm a little shorter than the member from South Burlington. I hope he didn't bore you all. I've been working with him for the last ten days, so I know it very well. But Madam Speaker, our Committee on Corrections and Institutions looked at Section five, six, seven and nine, and I'll quickly go through this, I hope. The forensic facility section five is our definition. This section under this bill, it will be amended by the member from West Rutland. But at this point, this section takes effect 01/01/2028. And it is the definition of forensic facility and how it would be structured. The facility a forensic facility means a locked secure facility licensed as the therapeutic community residence. And it would be where the agency of human services is providing for secure competency restoration, evaluation, stabilization, treatment and care of the persons with the qualifying conditions who are involved in the legal system. The forensic facility's clinical, forensic and competency restoration services would be provided and shall be overseen by the Agency of Human Services Medical Director. The Department of Corrections shall not play a role in the forensic facility's operation, the provision of services or internal security except to provide security services for the facility in the emitting area of the building and around the outside perimeter if the facility is co located on the grounds of a correctional facility. For folks who are held there, any records related to the person who was placed in the facility shall be exempt from public inspection and copying under the Public Records Act and shall be kept confidential. The Secretary of the Agency of Human Services shall regularly consult with the Commissioners of Corrections, Mental Health, Health and Dale when performing the duties required by this chapter in operating the facility. And lastly, the Secretary of Human Services shall adopt rules to implement this section. Section six is reportable adverse events in which the forensic facility would report to the Department of Mental Health instances of death or serious bodily injury to the individuals who are held there. Section seven is a feasibility plan. Our committee spent a lot of time working on this to make sure as we go forward with the forensic facility that the plan needs to occur now before we actually structure and build a forensic facility. So on or before 01/15/2027, the Secretary of Human Services in consultation with Department of Buildings and General Services would submit a feasibility plan for the development and operations of the forensic facility. The feasibility plan would assume the operation, staffing and programming of the forensic facility that would be provided by the agency of human services or its departments except the Department of Corrections. And again, it states, the Department of Corrections shall not play a role in its operations, the provisions of services or internal security other than security at the admitting area or around the periphery. The proposed location of a forensic facility would be independent from a correctional facility or if on the same grounds as a correctional facility would be separated by sight and sound. The plan needs to allow for the ability to separate residents by sex or gender and clinical need, the number of beds, the entities responsible for operating and providing the services, the timeline for construction, the cost of construction and operating the facility. The plan would need to include proposed staffing levels, staff qualifications, and potential contracting needs. We went on to discuss what occurs in the interim because as the member from South Burlington indicated, there's a small number of folks who are currently held in our correctional facilities without treatment. Your committee looked at the option of possibly looking at out of state placement where there's clinically appropriate programming. We're asking the agency of human services to look at this option. We're also asking in this feasibility plan for a competency restoration program within a Vermont correctional facility that would be provided by an entity that is not under contract with the Department of Corrections. This piece of the feasibility plan will be addressed in the member from West Rutland's amendment. We've also asked that the Agency of Human Services report on the feasibility plan and its development to the Joint Justice Oversight Committee in August and September of this year. And then lastly, Section nine deals with sunsets. Section nine would sunset Section seven item 12, which is your interim competency restoration program. And section 10, your effective dates. The feasibility plan in the sunset of the interim restoration program would take effect July 1, and all the remaining sections, the remaining sections would take effect in 01/01/2028. Madam Speaker, your House Corrections and Institutions Committee worked in conjunction with House Judiciary as well as House Healthcare and House Human Services Committee. And your committee voted in favor of s one ninety three on a vote of ten one zero. I now yield back to the member from South Burlington.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Springfield yields to the member from South Burlington.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, your judiciary committee heard from the following witnesses, legislative council, a policy analyst for the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council, commissioner of the Department of Mental Health, the general counsel for the Department of Mental Health, deputy state's attorney from the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, the legislative policy and records attorney for the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, two citizens, voices for Vermont victims, staff attorney for disability rights Vermont, Racial Justice Data Analyst of the Division of Racial Justice Statistics, Commissioner of the Department of Disabilities Aging and Independent Living, a Survey and Certification Unit Director of the Department of Disabilities Aging and Independent Living, the director of developmental disabilities services division of Dale, the general counsel of Dale, the director of policy for the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, the project director, the mental health law project of Vermont Legal Aid, the commissioner of the Department of Corrections, chief of criminal division of the attorney general's office, the executive director for the Center for Crime Victim Services, chief medical officers officer of Howard Center, policy advocate for ACLU of Vermont the and the defender general of the defender general's office and finally the chief superior judge of Vermont judiciary. And I thank the committee on corrections and institutions, health care and human services as well as appropriations committee whose hard work and input has made this a better bill. The judiciary committee on a vote of nine zero two found s one ninety three favorable with amendment and we ask you for your support.

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

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Underhill)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. Your appropriations committee reviewed S193 with legislative council and the joint physical office. As a result of our discussion, the House Appropriations Committee had offered an amendment related to section seven. The amendment is on page 3,721 in today's calendar. Since passing out of our committee, it was determined that some clarifying language was needed. So, since members of the House Judiciary Committee are offering an amendment that could also address the appropriations committee's concerns with the additional clarifying language, I ask leave of the house to withdraw the amendment proposed by your house appropriations committee. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Without objection, leave is granted. Now the member from Waterbury, representative Wood, and others offer an amendment to the report of the committee on judiciary that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Waterbury.

[Representative Theresa Wood (Waterbury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. This amendment is being offered by myself, the representative of Colchester, Hartford, Northfield, Guilford, Essex, Rutland City, Red Port, and Wolcott. And I want to, first thank the various committees who have worked on this bill, and I think we have, provided improvements to the bill as it came over from the senate. And we appreciate the time and attention that the judiciary committee has given to the amendment that we are proposing. The amendment can be found on today's calendar in on page 3,722. And I'll briefly review the elements of the amendment. The first part of the amendment actually appears in several places throughout the bill. And what it does is it does not automatically equate a qualifying condition, which essentially is the presence of a disability as having caused the crime the person is charged with or not necessarily caused the person's dangerousness. This change is made throughout the bill and later in the amendment to be offered by the representative from West Rutland and others. Our amendment also specifies that the required risk assessment that you heard the member from South Burlington speak of be made by an evaluator who is appropriately qualified to understand the individual's underlying disability. A person with a mental health disability is going to have different issues that need to be considered than a person with a developmental disability or a person with Alzheimer's, a person with a brain injury, or perhaps a person with dementia. All of those individuals are covered and will qualify for this facility. The amendment also enables the assessment and decision about least restrictive placement to also include consideration of a community based placement as appropriate. It also enables not only the state and the agency of human services medical director to petition the court for a review of the order, but it also enables the person to petition the court to reconsider the order for continued commitment to the facility. And finally, we add to the definition of a forensic facility in the permanent facility that it be a place that provides a suitable clinical setting for the individuals who would be residing there. Madam Speaker, again, I want to thank the Committee on Judiciary and the work that the committee on corrections and institutions as well as the work of our appropriations and health care committees. Thank you for the opportunity, we hope that the body will support this amendment.

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

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: We thank the the member of from Waterbury and the other, members on this amendment. We found it favorable on a vote of ten zero one and we asked for the body's support.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: So the question is, shall the report of the committee on judiciary be amended as offered by the member from Waterbury and others, member from West Rutland.

[Representative Thomas "Tom" Burditt (West Rutland)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, I wanna stand in support of this amendment from the member from Waterbury and others. This is an important piece, for a smooth implementation of this forensic program. 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 Waterbury and others? 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 amended the report of the committee on judiciary. Now the member from West Rutland, representative Burditt and others offer an amendment to the report of the committee on judiciary that the first assistant clerk emailed to members at 03:11 today. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from West Rutland.

[Representative Thomas "Tom" Burditt (West Rutland)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This has been a long time coming and not just this week. We're we're talking years of this coming and and from what I hear people talking, this has been a nine year process to get to this point where we're on the verge of actually having a not a forensics facility but a forensics program. There's 49 states that that have a either a program or a facility and and we're the only one that doesn't. For some reason, there's been roadblocks for about nine years that hasn't let this happen. If we don't do this now, are we gonna get in line, you know, behind the women's prison that's been talked about for years and years? You know, we have the opportunity now to get a program in place. And maybe we'll get in line behind the juvenile facility too. I think today is the day that we take a step forward and these people that that need to help and get them in front of the in front of the people that they need to be in front of. And and and the way this is gonna be set up is we're gonna talk, you know, over the next two or three years, we're going to talk brick and mortar. You know, we're going to talk an actual facility. But again, let's get these people in front of the people they need to be in front of. This amendment to s one ninety three is primarily made up of two changes to to the bill passed by the judiciary committee. First, the rep from South Burling explained the bill passed by the committee placed several limitations on the Department of Corrections involvement in the forensic facility. However, the facility will not be ready for another three years until 2029. In the meantime, there are still persons and correctional facilities would be placed in the facility if it was ready. For this reason, my amendment makes two important changes to the committee amendment. First, the amendment removes the limitations on DOC involvement and permits the department to play a more substantial role in the forensic competency restoration program until the facility itself becomes operational in three years on 07/01/2029. On that date, this part of the amendment sunsets and the judiciary committee's amendment takes effect with a limited DOC role described by the member from South Burlington. That is why this amendment is so lengthy. All the statutory sections had to be reprinted with the stronger DOC role and then sunsetted in three years. The second primary change is a requirement that the agency of human services adopt emergency rules to establish a temporary interim forensic competency restoration program that would be in effect until the forensic facility becomes operative in 2029. Again, the rules sunset in 2029 when the facility comes online. Each instance of amendment is related to the two primary changes that were just described. The first instance of amendment adds the 07/01/2029 effective date to the legislative intent section because it is on that date that the forensic facility becomes operative and the limitations on DOC involvement in the second sentence take effect. The second instance of amendment requires a feasibility plan to include opportunities and cost estimates for persons to receive competency restoration services through an out of state placement before the forensic facility is completed. The third instance of amendment requires AHS report to the Justice the Joint Justice Oversight Committee on the feasibility plan to also address the emergency rulemaking. The fourth instance of amendment was requested by House Appropriations Committee. It provides that AHS cannot advance the development of the permanent forensic facility absent further legislative enactment other than what is necessary to complete the feasibility plan and any other planning activities necessary to implement this act. However, the amendment also provides that no further legislative enactment is required to implement the interim forensic and competency restoration program that is established by the emergency rules. This amendment also provides that the interim program is contingent on the availability of sufficient resources including appropriate staffing levels. As I explained earlier, the fifth instance of amendment in sections nine, ten and eleven simply enact the same language that the representatives from South Burlington presented previously with the role of DOC expanded to include more security at the forensic facility and supervision of people who are released. Section 12 of the fifth instance of amendment provides the emergency rule making that requires AHS to establish an interim forensic and competency restoration program to operate until a permanent forensic facility is completed. The rulemaking is to be completed by 12/31/2026, but the forensic and competency restoration program established in the rules shall not be effective until 07/01/2027. Sections twelve and thirteen provide the expanded DOC rule and the emergency rulemaking both sunset on 07/01/2029. And lastly, section 14 of the fifth instance of amendment provides that the permanent forensic facility provisions presented earlier by the representative from South Burlington go into effect on 07/01/2029.

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

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, appreciate this amendment so much so that I joined the amendment as well. So we found it favorable on a vote of ten zero one in our committee. I just wanna make one of couple quick points. Just reiterate what I said before that, you know, this amendment recognizes that the status quo for the next three years is just not appropriate. And we need to provide individuals the treatment and it happens to be that it will be in a DOC facility until we have the other facility up and running. But we really need to do this. It's really a disservice to victims and to the alleged offenders as well. And just to be very clear, the expansion of Department of Corrections responsibility is because these individuals in the interim will be in a DOC facility. Are DOC staff will only be providing the security requirements including individuals who might be released on supervision. The medical director is in charge of the operation, clinical needs as well as ensuring that individuals who have been released on supervision that they're complying with their medical regimen. So I just wanted to reiterate that but we ask for the body's support. Thank you.

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

[Representative Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: Madam Speaker, your House Graphic and Institutions Committee looked at this amendment and we support the amendment on a vote of eight-two-one. But I must say that the committee is concerned, some members of the committee are concerned that we are going to be using the Department of Corrections and our correctional facilities as the fallback. In voicing that concern, we did work with the amendment, the sponsor of the amendment and House Judiciary Committee to include language in the rulemaking that we wanted to make sure that the services that are provided to folks in the interim plan is not contracted with the Department of Corrections. We wanted to make sure that folks who are incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity are placed in a living unit in the facility that is not your general population unit. And we also wanted to make sure that there was sufficient staffing and resources both in providing the security within the facility for folks as well as any monitoring out in the community by our probation and parole department. So on a vote of eight to one, your your corrections and institutions committee finds this amendment favorable.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: And now member from Underhill.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Underhill)]: Madam speaker, your house appropriations committee heard and discussed the amendment and finds the amendment favorable on a vote of eleven zero zero. Thank you.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: So the question is, shall the report of the committee on judiciary as amended be further amended as offered by the member from West Rutland and others. Are you ready for the question? Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I think the the issue involved in both the amendment by the committee on judiciary and the proposed amendment before us now to that amendment are in many ways much more complex than they might appear. So I think it's worth having a bit more of a primer to what you've heard. You've been spared a floor time taken up by my voice for seven weeks. So I figured I'd grab some of that time back this evening and try not to be too disjointed in what I present. Because it's too important to just hear the amendment and the amendment to it. The system itself that underlines it currently and background to how we got to this point are really important because it's about human rights and the rights of communities to expect public safety. Madam speaker, the underlying amendment and the amendment being proposed to it are integrally connected in the various components of programs and so forth. Would I have permission to address both?

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

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you. You know, nobody ever likes to hear the term, oh, that guy got away with murder. And we hear that at times, concerns about that. So, what does that mean exactly when people use that phrase? Well, it probably means one of two things, at least in the context of of either mental illness or other mental disabilities. If it's about those issues rather than say a a statutory appeal, it it means one of two paths, and they've been described to you by the presenter of the bill. But just to to review briefly because they're very different. People inflate them as as being kind of the same thing. The first is what's called not guilty by reason of insanity. That's a significant minority of the cases, but it means that at the time that a crime occurred, did the person actually even know what they were doing? Crimes require intent. Our social belief is that we shouldn't punish someone when it was not of their own volition because of an illness. So I wanna note that's that sort of case is a rarity in Vermont when it's contested when someone pleads not guilty by reason of insanity. The two most prominent cases in recent years, both a man wielding a machete and the other the wrong way driver were rejected by the jury as not guilty by reason of insanity. They both received life in prison sentences. Insanity please draw a lot of headlines but they have very high standards. Sometimes there's an agreement by a state's attorney or prosecutor because in fact the illness is so evident, so it's not contested. But it doesn't mean the person walks away, which is what some of the conversation, the background noise has has asserted. Doesn't mean somebody walks away. It means they're subject to mandatory locked treatment under our current commitment laws. Until under the best judgment of the experts treating them, that person is stable and not a danger to others. Best judgment of the same sort of experts that this bill will rely on in assessing those factors. The statute specific that if as a result of a mental illness, the capacity to exercise self or control or judgment is so lessened that they possess a danger to self or others, then they can be committed under existing law. Supposing a danger means they've inflicted or attempted to inflict serious bodily harm by threats or by threats placing others in reasonable fear of bodily harm. The second category, as you heard explained earlier, very different circumstance of when people say, oh, they're getting away with it or they're gonna get away with it. And that's a that's a supreme court standard that says you can't put someone on trial on a charge if the person can't understand what's happening, can't defend themselves at the time of trial. It's very different from insanity at the time the crime is committed, which is a single point in time. Some mental conditions that cause incompetence are permanent, others can change. That's another difference, from not guilty by reason of insanity. So what happens in the meantime when they are not competent? They also don't just walk free in the case of a violent crime. They are held up to the same standards as the statute I just read for criminal commitment to a locked facility if they are present a danger to self or others. If they ever receive bail for a charge, they're under the same bail standards, including consideration of the danger. And depending on the degree of disability causing it, it might be in prison, it might be in a locked hospital for treatment in the meantime, including treatment that may help regain competence in that interim. If released from the hospital with those charges, they can be returned to prison on bail. So they are not, wandering on our streets. People on bail commit crimes while they're released. We know that. People released from prison commit crimes. People released patients who are released from a hospital, from a psychiatric hospital commit crimes. People all around us commit crimes, and predictability is extremely hard. It's hard for a judge. It's It's harder for a doctor. It's harder for parole boards. It's hard for a prosecutor deciding whether to drop a charge when balancing overall variables including considerations of risk. And human elements and judgments always involve risk of error. That doesn't mean that the system is in error. The one difference when talking about the risk of future dangerousness is that when a person deemed dangerous is deemed dangerous, but it is not related to a disability, that person is always released after they have served the maximum time of their sentence. A person with a disability can be held without limit, without ever being convicted of a crime. The degree of risk of further harm is only used for those with disabilities. So that's a brief summary of our current system now. So outside the ever present risk of human error, what is broken as a system? Some would say that the broken part is that we lack a forensic facility. That is essentially a fallacy. We are a small state. As an example, most states have state prisons for convicted criminals and county jails for people on short sentences or who are detainees pretrial. We combine those. We don't have separate facilities. We combine those for all of those purposes. Vermont is small. We've always combined those under civil commitment hospitalization needs and those with criminal commitment needs. What is a hospital for criminal commitment needs? It's called the forensic hospital. That's what we've always had. I could show you the numbers from ten or fifteen or twenty five, fifty years ago that break down the statistics and always indicate the very small percentage of beds among the small percentage of people who need a locked setting because of symptoms that create public risk just as it is still tiny today. But as practices evolve, we had a gap evolve, though opposite in direction than what you may assume from things you've heard. Long term state hospitals changed over time, in part with federal pressure to focus on acute treatment needs only. For those with long term needs but still needing security for safety reasons, development of lower acuity facilities were developed and separated from acute care hospitals. So without those in Vermont, doesn't mean our forensic commitments walked the streets. They stayed in the state hospital using beds and spates there. We have people who have committed violent crimes and who are in our existing locked system and have been for decades. But the Center for Medical Medical and Medicaid Services, the federal government, began demanding that for hospital level treatment that institutional care was no longer being permitted, for payment for Medicaid. So, when the state hospital closed after capital storm Irene, some of its inpatient beds were recreated into intensive recovery residences for those who no longer needed long term but needed lower acuity than hospital care. They were residing in our state hospital. They belonged in a residential facility and CMS was also demanding that. That plan from the very start included a locked residence for those with safety risks who had been at the state hospital but needed a secure but lower acuity care setting. Temporary facility was replaced just a few years ago within the memory of many people in this body in the capital bill. It created a program that was double the size of the temporary interim one and what had been envisioned in the original plan for replacement of the hospital. In the past several years, in fact, we've built an expansion by more than a third of our highest security mental health beds, resulting at times even in excess capacity. Two years ago, exploring the question again of the need for a quote forensic facility for those under a criminal commitment and considered a danger but not needing hospital level care, the legislature in collaboration with AHS recognized that the only missing link was that the new system had been set up with the secure residents planned only for step down from the hospital. You couldn't be admitted directly if that was the level of care you needed. You needed to be at the hospital first. So we changed it two years ago. We changed it so that there could be direct admission to the locked residents for care for those people who needed that added security and treatment, and those measures were also added, further security and treatment. We therefore then had all levels. We had high level locked hospitalization, high level locked residential, and both of those serve both civil patients and the forensic. In other words, criminal system related. The bill this bill, neither the amendment or the amendment to it, does anything to address our human fears of future violence based on terrible cases of horrific crimes by people of all stripes. They're very dangerous people in our world. They're very dangerous people in our prisons. But we don't lock up hundreds of people without a disability because of fear of future violence, what's sometimes termed preventive detention. And we shouldn't lock up those with disabilities for a same false fear the cases where dangers did happen to prove true, but most likely would never have been predictable. So what is the issue then apart from wanting to use that label forensic on our existing facilities and programs. It's been said if you wanna find out what's driving a policy, follow the money. The federal government allows Medicaid funding contributions for those who need to be in hospital level care, But they don't fund criminal justice system, and this includes people who are pending trial who need a need a secure setting for non hospital level treatment due to a disability. The plans the legislature approved just two years ago to address the lower than hospital need would result, would place at risk, would learn the entire facility being deemed a correctional setting, even if segmented off from other patients, with none of it therefore eligible for Medicaid match, even if a majority of the patients there are civilly committed, not forensic. And that's part of why we're back here this year, not because we didn't address or attempt to address the problem in past years, but because our attempts from a financial point of view have not been successful. So the quick fix proposal that came across from the other body saw a solution by just building a brand new facility run by DOC to segregate criminal justice involved persons. It wouldn't have met public needs or patient needs, but it would protect those dollars. The first extremely positive and vital thing that the initial judiciary house judiciary amendment did is to say, we're still mental health facility, not correctional. This amendment before you now, however, reverses that position. It creates a program, this program in the Department of Corrections instead of insisting that we are talking about medical facilities. None of the people found not competent at awaiting trial have been found guilty of a crime. That's self evident. They can't be tried because they would not understand the trial itself. So the courts have said you can't do that, yet they can be locked up forever without ever being convicted. It's a catch 22, locked up with a trial because of being too ill to stand trial. To catch 22, for both the patient and the state, which has an obligation to protect public safety and to protect the rights of people charged with but not convicted of dangerous crimes. But at a minimum, if locked up in those circumstances, it should be for treatment, not punishment. And that is a fundamental flaw that this new amendment makes, allows it to begin and thus likely remain permanently in a Department of Corrections facility. One means of addressing that catch 22 is to provide treatment that helps a person to get well and that enables them to understand a trial and their rights and to go forward on trial. The concept that this bill brings is that distinct component of treatment supports that help meeting the court test for competency. This is the one forensic component that Vermont has not had in its facilities. Often, there are concerns and pushback against creating that because logic would tell you if a person is involuntarily required to undergo treatment, generic treatment for whatever their illness is, getting well means becoming competent. The concept of a separate system solely for competency restoration creates the concern that it becomes a manipulated form of only focus on being able to face trial. Teach the answers needed. Focus on those core skills instead of caring whether there's actually treatment that's helping the person also get better. So that will need careful vetting of provider and monitoring of the program if this program goes forward as currently proposed or on in the underlying amendment. The aspects of a competency restoration program are important, but need to be really distinguished as beneficial to help the person get well and be able to stand trial. Madam speaker, this bill was incredibly frustrating to see come over to the house because it was rooted in some complete failures to understand our existing system, rooted in failures to understand the differences among types of disabilities and the kind of treatment that will best help them while also protecting public needs. Rooted in the misconception that a disability is the cause of criminality. Rooted in the deep prejudice that mental disability is a state of being rather than an illness. Whether deemed sane or insane, no one should be punished more severely because they also have a disability. No one should be punished for actions they had no ability to discern. No one should be treated differently based upon a disability alone. No one should be held in preventive detention for life based upon theoretical danger that others may also represent. The amendment that came from the judiciary committee vastly changed those underlying, focus and tools that the bill was based on. It tremendously improved it in part because it gave the ability with a feasibility plan and other components that allowed the flaws that still exist in its process to be corrected in the course of developing the program, in the course of time of working on creating a full program. But that time, that ability to correct some of these critical flaws has been very sharply reduced in the proposed amendment that you see now. Emergency rule making making followed by a few months of time where the legislature might be able to correct items, but much much less than the thoughtful kind of process that the original amendment from the judiciary committee had. I wanna give you just a couple of examples, not taking it walking line by line through the bill. But it says in one part, for instance, people who would qualify would be those, would be for crimes, with a life sentence. And that makes it sound like, oh, well, if they're gonna be held in a life sentence anyway, better in the forensic facility. But in fact, those crimes virtually all say, up to life sentence, up to. You could be sentenced to a much lower number of years and not be held the rest of your life as you can be in the forensic facility without having been convicted. Other crimes that are listed in the in the category of who would be brought up are crimes without bail, but that have even lower maximums. We we have one we have one crime that is punishable for up to life in prison, but the minimum in that scale is seven years, anywhere from seven years to life in prison. And there are a lot of others that have lower maximums. It's not about, people who would otherwise be facing, a life sentence. For people who are held without bail, there's something called the weight of the evidence hearing. That means the court actually has to look at whether this is more than just an arresting officer in play with probable cause, but there's actually a good amount of weight behind the fact that this crime was committed. That's still not guilty. That's still not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's still not a trial. But it is something more than just probable cause. Yet one eligibility category in this bill in both the underlying amendment and the amendment before us does not require a way to the evidence hearing. What that means is you can face lifelong consequences based on the only evidence that the person committed that crime is their arrest and probable cause level. Another part of this bill says, even if there is no danger, no dangerous anymore, it's been evaluated. They can't establish that there is still danger, but that person remains under an ongoing, potentially lifelong sense of parole, if you will have would have it. A sort of a parole about what treatment you must continue to be taking. In fact, everything in the processes are parallels to people who have been convicted with crimes. The problem is they've never been convicted of a crime. Even with not guilty by reason of insanity, there's been reference to make usually the person admits to the facts but says, but they can't be held liable because of insanity. But in fact, we don't have anything in our statutes that say the facts have to be admitted to or the facts have to be established. So even in that case, these are people who've not necessarily ever been proven to have committed the crime that's the basis for them being in the forensic facility. Furthermore, there's virtually every part of the bill where there are court hearings involved. There's opportunity for a victim statement. The problem is that, yes, there was a victim of a crime, but we've never established in law or in court that this person whose fate is before the judge is actually a person who committed the crime. So the victim doesn't have that nexus that every other court case a victim would have, and that is having already been found guilty of committing that crime against that victim. Another gap in the bill, as amended and the further amendment, is that there are references at different parts. You heard reference to opportunities when a person is maybe in that parole status in being in another residence and being in a community program through Dale or mental health. What wasn't mentioned is that they don't exist for people with a brain injury or somebody with Alzheimer's or dementia. So they are only their only option is to be continue to be held in the forensic facility because there is no program. There's no some years back, number of years back, I've been here probably too long, but we attempted to add traumatic brain injury to the category of people who could be supervised if they were found not competent to stand trial or not guilty so that they were not left with no treatment or no there was nothing at all for them. And it was the agency of human services that said, no, that would cost too much money to set up a program like that. We don't wanna do it. And so that was dropped. So those people do not have an option for any other location and it's the same for dementia. The amendment that this amendment seeks to replace, The amendment from the judiciary committee wasn't perfect, but it went a long way in changing the bill that arrived here. It turned around a discriminatory fear based blind attack on what's really a false boogeyman into a rational approach to improve our system. The original amendment added key pieces that required judicious review rather than plunging in blindly. There's legal language that still needs work as I've just gone over with you. There are holes in the way some disabilities may be treated inappropriately or left out, and we don't have a plan yet for how to run a competency restoration program. Who's right for it?

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

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: who's not? But there was time to build into that work, to do that work first before implementing it, thanks to the feasibility study. It set a groundwork in place to create the possibility of better programs for no those who need them and tries to avoid vilifying people solely based on a disability rather than based on a crime. It protected against charging into building something unnecessarily. It fought before acting in a way that hasn't been done before amidst cries that have been focused solely on, we don't have a forensic facility, so we must build one. But now this new amendment before you says, do the program first before thinking it through and do it at DOC, a complete reversal of all of the work that was a part of the proposal amendment that originally came from judiciary. If we stop just a moment and think, what is implicit bias? It's the unconscious exception of myths. I want to share for a moment. Speaker, if I may?

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

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: A couple of conclusions drawn by the National Institutes of Health. Three main points. First, the major determinants of violence continue to be socio demographic and socioeconomic factors such as being young, male, and lower socioeconomic status. If you wanna look for the most likely cause of violence, you look for young males. Second, it concluded, members of the public undoubtedly exaggerate both the strength of the relationship between major mental disorders and violence as well as their own personal risk from the severely mentally ill. And third, substance abuse appears to be a major determinant of violence, and this is true whether it occurs in the context of a concurrent mental illness or not. So an interesting study also done by the National Institutes for Health, which looked at the the ratio, what they called the population attributable risk by those levels of violence by different categories, including those with a major mental illness. And it indicated, and I'm quoting here again from the National Institutes for Health, The level of violence, those with a major mental disorder, the population attributable risk was four point three percent indicating that violence in the community could be reduced by less than five percent if all major mental disorders could be eliminated. It's not just talking about locking up a few people. It's talking about all major, malonuses could be eliminated. You could reduce violence in the community by less than five percent. So, madam speaker, as the NIH reflected, people believe in dangerousness disproportionate to reality. Locking people up for what other people are not locked up for. The same crime, the same risk of future dangerousness will either get you held potentially for the rest of your life or let you be released after your sentence has been served based on the fact that you have a mental disability. That implicit bias drives this entire amendment as well as the underlying amendment's premises. The amendment retains this this proposed, amendment to the amendment retains the worst elements of the processes that rest on bias and myths while holding out a promise of making things better three years from now. There is a small window of time between emergency regulations and starting the program, but it requires the initiative of the legislature. It's not a required review. Remember raise the age? For all those who supported it or those who oppose it, how many years has it been pushed back? We can say we have sunsets. We can say we we wanna have happen, but they don't hold any water. They get pushed back, and the reality is what's created in this amendment to the judiciary's amendment today creates what we will all see as a permanent system. So if you choose to vote for this and you expect to be here next year, I ask that you commit yourself to following what happens. If we're stepping onto the new ground of this approach, it needs to have a foundation based on equity, justice, and the and the public good. None can stand alone. With this amendment, we are omitting justice, equity, and the public good in order to expedite the program before it's fully thought through and developed as the way it was intended in the original judiciary amendment. Those will need to be protected by this body's attention to what happens next.

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

[House Reading Clerk]: Madam speaker, I stand just very briefly to express my deep and sincere gratitude to the member for Northfield for all of the contributions she brings to this body, but specifically tonight to this debate. And I hope that the members were able to comprehend and will then consider the nuances she points out about this amendment. And I stand with, again, deep gratitude and support for what she brings to the conversation tonight.

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

[Representative Mary A. Morrissey (Bennington)]: Madam speaker, for those of us from Bennington, this amendment is of particular importance. In 2021, one of our neighbors, one of our friends lost her daughter when Emily Hammond was murdered a few blocks from my home. The individual in that case was found incompetent to stand trial. I do respect the remarks by the member from Northfield. Like much of our work, I suppose this legislation balances conflicting rights. The rights of the disabled or those deemed incompetent on one side and the rights of victims and of the public to be protected on the other. We should and do spend a lot of time in this building working to get legislation right. Of course for Emily's family, nothing can make right the tragedy that occurred in Bennington. But the request I have heard most clearly from that family is make progress. Make progress towards a forensic system in Vermont. Make progress towards a competency restoration program in Vermont. And that is what this amendment does. I thank the judiciary and institutions committees for their hard work on this amendment. And on behalf of victims and their families, I urge you to support this long awaited step towards progress.

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

[Representative Shawn Sweeney (Shelburne)]: Madam speaker, this legislation is an example of true compromise between Republicans, Independents, Progressives, and Democrats, all of us. It will keep Vermonters safe. It will be a bridge to take care of a uniquely small group of incarcerated people who are struggling with mental illness, traumatic brain injuries, and dementia who we want to provide competency restoration services to. Presently, we are doing nothing for these people. I am voting yes, and I ask you to join me in doing the same.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on judiciary as amended be further amended as offered by the member from West Rutland and others? Are you ready for the question? If so, member from South Burlington.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I really appreciate the contributions of

[Representative Michael Marcotte (Coventry)]: the

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: member from Northfield. And, we will continue to be working on this. And a lot of the issues, that she raised, are issues that we've been grappling with the last few weeks and have, made decisions based on grappling with those decisions. Again, it's really critical that we recognize individuals are not receiving treatment currently who are being incarcerated. But I think most important is that almost all the witnesses, not not all the witness, but a lot of the witnesses, and I'll explain who who they are, came to us in support of of our work to get a forensic facility, including with this amendment for finding a an interim or bridge. The Department of State's attorneys fully supported this. The Department of Mental Health, Dale. And and I think, really importantly, the defender general, supported and and says we need a forensic facility. And and I also reached out to him on on the amendment, and and he communicated that he didn't feel he had to weigh in any further on that because he and and he also said that we had we had covered a lot of the issues that he was concerned with, in his initial testimony. He said we need a forensic facility, but we make sure that we need to make sure that

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: it's

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: constitutional, that it follows due process. And he felt that we did accommodate that and we did address that. But I think it's really critical when you find that pretty much everybody in the criminal justice system is saying that we need the forensic facility, and we need to get it moving. And that's what this amendment does and the underlying bill does as well. And I ask for the body's support.

[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. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have further amended the report of the committee on judiciary. Now the question is shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary as amended. Are you ready for the question? If so, member from Bennington.

[Representative Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: Madam speaker, because of the importance of this bill and that we are the only state in the country that does not have a forensic facility or is even looking to go in that direction. I would like a roll call please.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Venetian requests that 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. The question is shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary as amended? Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Arsenault of Welliston. Yes.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: One minute. 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. 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 as amended? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Austin of Colchester. Bailey of Hyde Park. Bartholomew of Heartland. Bartley of Fairfax. Rebecca Winooski. Byron River Gens. Yes. Bishop of Colchester. Black of Essex.

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Bloomley of Burlington. Boswell in Westminster, Bosch of Clarendon, Boonton Bay City, Boyden of Cambridge, Brady Williston, Branagan of Georgia, Brigham of Saint Albans Town. Yes. Brown and Richmond. Yes. West Rutland. Yes. Burkhardt of South Burlington. Yes. Burrows West Windsor. Burditt Cabot. Campbell, St. Johnsbury. Canfield For Haven. Yes. Carris Duncan, Alightingham. Casey Montpelier.

[Representative Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: You know what I'd like to explain my both?

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Casey Hubbardton. Chief in East Montpelier. Charlton of Chester. Christie of Hartford. Gina of Burlington. Coffin of Cavendish. Yes. Full of Hartford. No. Conlon and Cornwall.

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Cooper Panel.

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Corcoran of Bennington. Critchlow of Colchester. Yes. Demar of Venusburg. Yes. Dickinson of Saint Albans Town. Dodge of Essex? Yes. Dolan of Essex Junction? Yes. Dolgin of St. Johnsbury? Yes. Donahue of Northfield? Yes. Duke of Burlington?

[Representative Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Dobrovich of Shaftesbury? Eastes of Guildford? Emmons of Springfield, Feltus Blendon, Galfetti of Berrytown, Garifano of Essex, Goldman of Rockingham, Good Now Brattleboro, Ghostland of Northfield, Branagan, Jericho. Rear Bennington. Yes. Greg Burkhardt Fairfield.

[Representative Mary A. Morrissey (Bennington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Hengal Berkshire. Yes. Purple of Glover. Harvey of Castleton. Yes. Hadrick of Burlington.

[Representative Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: No. And I'd like to

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Higley of Low. Yes. Holcomb and Norwich. Cooper Randolph. Put in Domestic Junction. Howard, York City, Holland, Rutland Town, Point Of Hartford, Hunter Manchester, James of Manchester, Kasinski, Burke, Keyser, Rutland City, Kimball Woodstock. Yes. Putner, Burlington.

[Representative Mary A. Morrissey (Bennington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Corcoran, Battle Royale, Cresno, South Burlington. Leiber, Morgan. Lyle Shelburne, Llona South Burlington, Lomono Morristown, LaRussia Franklin, Lipsky of Stowe, Logan of Burlington, Long and Newfane, Long and Milton, leaders of Lincoln, Luno, St. Almond City, Maguire, Rutland City, Mollie Pittsford, Mark Carter Coventry, Maslyn of Thetford, McCann of Montpelier, McCoy Pultney, McGillard Burtt, Mollie or Nicholas of Milton, Mollie Callis, Many of South Burlington. Morgan L of Milton. Morgan M of Milton. Yes. Morris of Springfield. Morris of Bennington. Morris Weston. Merwicki of Putney, Nelson of Derby, Nelson of Brandon, Michael Benington, North of Fairsburg, New Gena South Burlington, O'Brien of Tunbridge. OD Burlington. Oliver of Sheldon. Yes. Olsen of Starksboro. Page, Newport City. Yes. Parsons of Newbury. Pezzo of Colchester. Yes. Pinson All Dorset. Yes. Tasha Hindsburg?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Powers of Waterford? Yes. Pritchlow Paulette? Yes. Wendy of Linden?

[Representative Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Richardson of Burlington? Secwitz of Randolph? Yes. Shy of Middlebury?

[Unidentified Representative from Jericho]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Scully of Burlington?

[Representative Michael Marcotte (Coventry)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Sheldon of Middlebury? Yes. Sibilia of Dover? Yes. Susie of Berrytown? Yes. Southworth of Walden? Yes. Square Of Underhill. Steady Milton. Yes. Stevens Waterbury.

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Stone of Burlington. Sweeney of Shelburn.

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Tyler V. Krins. Yes. Taylor Mendon. Thomas Tomlunowski. Tomlunowski. Yes. Torrey Mortown. Walker Swanton. Yes. Wasses at Berry City. Evans of Charlotte? Yes. Wells of Brownington?

[Representative Michael Marcotte (Coventry)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Wider Waitsfield? Yes. Wider Bethel? Yes. Wider Waterbury? Yes. Yacoboni and Morristown? Rebecca Vanusky, Bos- and Westminster, Bartholomew West Windsor, Carris Duncan of Whitingham, Casey Hubbardton, Christie of Hartford, Gina Burlington, Harper of Glover, Cooper Randolph, Howard of Rutland City, Hoyda Hartford, Kresno, South Burlington, Luno of Saint Albans City, Maguire of Rutland City, Marquard of Coventry, Morgan Meniere of South Burlington, Morgan L. M. L. Ten. Nielsen of Brandon, O'Brien of Tunbridge, Olsen of Starksboro, Parsons of Newberry, Burlington, Stone of Burlington, Tom oh, excuse me. Torrey Mortown, and Woodwater Berry.

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

[Representative Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Madam speaker, I voted no. When you're retiring from the legislature, interim plans and feasibility reports just don't carry the same weight. I echo the member from Northfield and I'd ask my colleagues who are here next biennium to hold this administration's feet to the fire. Hold your own feet to the fire. Don't let the temporary become the permanent. Both victims and the accused who are seeking treatment and due process deserve far better than this.

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

[Representative William "Will" Greer (Bennington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. In memory of Emily Hammond and her mother's tireless advocacy for Vermont's victims, justice for Emily.

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

[Representative Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: This bill was not perfect when it left the senate, and it is not perfect as we vote tonight. It is, however, progress. I am proud to support this bill to advance public safety in Vermont, hold our most dangerous offenders accountable, and in honor of the relentless advocacy of a grieving mother in the memory of her beloved daughter, Emily.

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

[House Reading Clerk]: Madam speaker, as now amended, all we have done is create a forensic program that is disproportionately controlled by the Department of Corrections despite the fact that the impacted population has not been convicted of a crime. A forensic program, in contrast, must absolutely be clinically led with a within a therapeutic environment. Our correctional facilities, by any objective measure, cannot possibly be considered as therapeutic. Additionally, this bill completely disregards valid concerns regarding the well established violations of constitutionally guaranteed due process rights. All we have done is create a foothold for Department of Corrections control over a forensic population that

[Representative Mary A. Morrissey (Bennington)]: has

[House Reading Clerk]: been disguised as an interim program.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: And, other member from Burlington?

[Representative Theresa Wood (Waterbury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. As amended, this bill would establish a program that criminalizes Vermonters with disabilities without sufficient due process. In this form, I cannot call this progress.

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: May I explain my vote?

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

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: I vote yes for the commitment to keep the temporary temporary and our state accountable to everyone who lives here.

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

[Representative Thomas "Tom" Burditt (West Rutland)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

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

[Representative Thomas "Tom" Burditt (West Rutland)]: Thank you. S193 is for the victims.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members, please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 115. Those voting no, nine. The ayes have it and you have proposed to the senate to amend the bill. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Member from Pulte, can you please offer us a motion to suspend our rules to place Senate Bill 193 and all remaining stages of passage?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam Speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to place S193 in all remaining stages of passage.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Pulte moves that we suspend our rules to place senate bill 193 in all remaining stages of passage. 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 place Senate Bill 193 in all remaining stages of passage. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk]: S one ninety three, an act relating to establishing a forensic facility for certain criminal justice involved persons.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. Ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill in concurrence with proposal of amendment. Member from Pulte, can you please offer us a motion to suspend our rules to message our action on senate bill one ninety three to the senate forthwith?

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

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Pulte moves that we suspend our rules to message our action on senate bill one ninety three 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. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you have suspended our rules to message our action on senate bill one ninety three to the senate forthwith. Members, we had considered taking up senate bill three thirteen tonight but due to the hour, we will do it tomorrow. So with that, it completes the orders of the day. Are there any announcements? Seeing none. Member from Holdeny, can you please offer us a motion to adjourn until Wednesday, May 27 at 10AM.

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion this body stand and adjournment until Wednesday, 05/27/2026 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 German until tomorrow at 10AM.