Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Senate will come to order. In lieu of a devotional, we will have a moment of silence. Thank you. Are there any announcements? Seeing none we have a house bill for referral. H seven ten an act relating to defining electricity generating facilities. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H seven ten, an act relating to defining electricity generating facilities.

[Speaker 0]: Now the bill has been read for the first time and is referred to the committee on finance. That brings us to the orders of the day. We have up for action s two ten, an act relating to access to autopsy reports, which was referred to the committee on health and welfare, which reports it has considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended, as appears in today's calendar. And that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S two ten, an act relating to access to autopsy reports.

[Speaker 0]: I'd like to recognize the senator from Washington District, senator Cummings.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. This two ten was submitted by the senator from Addison, senior senator from Addison, as a response to a constituent's request or concern. And the issue we were trying to deal with and we had two witnesses. We had an anonymous member of the public, and we had chief superior judge Zonet. The situation that we were being asked to rectify was that the witness. Her daughter died. Unexpectedly I believe in her sleep, and the daughter had two young children. The father of the children had been out of the picture for a long time, lived out of state. He arrived back in, had himself declared guardian of the children, and then took the kids and moved out of state. The children, as the heirs, had the right to the autopsy report. And the father, who was estranged, at least from our witness and apparently from the mother of the children, the end result was that this mother could not find out how what her daughter died from, what had happened to her daughter. And that was really, you know, along with the grief, the not knowing Bob was a heavy thing for her. And we listened to the story, and we were gung ho. We were going to fix it. And then judge Zonay came in to testify. And he said, yeah. But have you considered? And we kinda looked at him and said, well, no. I guess we haven't. And so the language you have for you reflects the feedback from judge zoning, plus this wording has been submitted to the state's attorneys for their input. And what it does is it just puts some guardrails around who can have access and under what conditions and what the process is for getting access to a an autopsy report. We didn't want a member of the press going in and saying, well, I'm interested, and I'm the press, and you have to give this to me, and it'll be on the front page next week. So it says an individual who was not authorized to receive the autopsy report may have petitioned to the probate division of the superior court for a copy, and it will contain an affidavit attesting to the petitioner's relationship to the decedent and the reason the petitioner is seeking the autopsy report. The they the petitioner will also notify the office of the medical examiner's office and the state's attorney in which the death occurred. And they the state's attorney will have fourteen days to respond after the notice. If the superior court finds that the petitioner has demonstrated good cause for the petitioner to obtain a report and the state's attorney doesn't object, it shall be ordered, and that person will be able to receive it. But they in whole and or part and may play the chief medical examiner will do it, and they may place restrictions on the petitioner's dissemination of the copy of the of the report. And so there will be some discretion as to why that person wants to receive it, but maybe there's reason not to receive all of it. These are frequently family issues, and they can get very complex and emotional very quickly. But and nobody wants anybody going out and disseminating information just to have whoever they feel like. And then it sets out what is determining good cause. It's the relationship of the petitioner to the decedent, whether the the disclosure is necessary for the public evaluation of governmental performance. Believe that would be if somebody thought maybe there were bullet wounds and the police didn't follow through. Maybe somebody should know that kind of thing. Whether disclosure is necessary oh, no. It's governmental performance, seriousness of the intrusion into the deceased's prime privacy, whether the the disclosure is the least intrusive means available, and the ability of similar information elsewhere. So it's only you have to have a good reason. You have to be related generally to the petitioner to the deceased. You are the petitioner. And you can't just disseminate it anywhere. But there is this kind of narrow area in which the courts can allow you to see some or all of the autopsy report. We the vote in committee was five zero, five zero zero, and we ask the senate to concur.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, senator. Question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on health and welfare? Senator for Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Thank you, mister president. I would like to just thank the, reporter of the bill and the entire health and welfare committee for taking this bill up and and doing so with so much care. This bill did as the senior senator from Washington noted come out of tragedy in our district and it is one way of providing some kind of closure and I just really appreciate it and I really ask the Senate to approve this. It is probably a provision that will not be used very much, but when it is used, I think it could have a meaningful impact on on families who find themselves in this type of situation again. So, I thank you for your support. Thank you, mister president.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from, Windsor.

[Unidentified Senator from the Windsor District]: Thank you, mister president. I'm supportive of this language, and I think it makes sense. I have one question, that I believe the reporter of the bill may be able to help address, so I'd like to inquire of the reporter of the bill.

[Speaker 0]: The reporter will be interrogated.

[Unidentified Senator from the Windsor District]: Thank you, mister president, and thank you for providing, your report on this bill. My question relates to a situation in which the autopsy might reveal a cause of death that then I would seek a civil lawsuit in relation to perhaps information that I learned that there was factors that a company may have caused harm that led to the ultimate death of the person, how would I as an individual, let's say I was the person receiving the autopsy report, Would I be able to use that as evidence in a court case? Would I be able to use that to bring a court case?

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: I think you would have to you would have to reveal why you were seeking this to the probate court in order to get the autopsy report. So whether or not you had enough interest to get that would be a determination of the court. And then it would also be a determination of the court or the state's attorney or the medical examiner whether or not there would be a limit put on your ability to disseminate that information. So if you told them you were doing an investigation into deaths from a chemical in the well water and that this was, you know, necessary for you to know that, and they decided that was okay, then they probably wouldn't tell you. They may tell you you needed to keep the name separate, but that would all be part of what was revealed and either allowed or not allowed through the courts.

[Unidentified Senator from the Windsor District]: I appreciate that answer. Did this bill, go through the senate judiciary committee as well?

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: It is my understanding that a copy was given to the judiciary committee, but we have not heard from them.

[Unidentified Senator from the Windsor District]: Okay. I thank the thank you, mister president.

[Speaker 0]: Question again. Shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on health and welfare? Are you ready for that question? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham District)]: Thank you. Just to clarify, I did agree to have the senate judiciary committee look at this bill. It's on our agenda, I believe, for Tuesday, but if I I I don't know that it would be we'd be able to review it prior to third reading because third reading would be Tuesday morning. It's my understanding, but we are still happy to take a look at it on the planned

[Speaker 0]: date. Senator, I I might suggest that the president pro tem could hold third reading, to allow the committee to do some work if that was everyone's choice.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham District)]: That sounds like a great idea.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Question again. Shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on health and welfare? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have amended the bill as recommended by the committee on health and welfare. Question now is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed nay. The ayes have it. And you have ordered third reading of S210. We now have on the calendar for action H545. It was referred to the committee on health and welfare, which reports it has considered the bill and recommends that the senate proposed to the house that the bill be amended as appears at page one fifty one of today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the expenditures of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as recommended by the committee on health and welfare. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H five forty five, an act relating to issuing immunization recommendations.

[Speaker 0]: I would recognize the senator from Chittenden Southeast for a report.

[Senator Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden Southeast District)]: Thank you, mister president. The changes that have occurred at the federal level regarding immunizations have caused some disruption and concern within the medical community, the public health community, and for all of us who question which and what immunizations are currently appropriate. The our Department of Health is very concerned about this and would like to have things stay as they are currently within the state of Vermont with a commitment to preserve access and coverage of routine and preventative immunizations. And so through this bill, we are doing that. We're bringing a recommendation that came to us from our Department of Health, and we've we've looked at it. We've acted on it. Yeah. You'll notice that it is a a bill that's come over from the other body, and we took it up because of the concerns that have been expressed both in the state and by our constituents on a regular basis regarding, immunizations. So what happens in this bill is to establish and maintain a clear transparent process for issuing immunization recommendations recommendations based on a consideration of science. The bill will maintain the current coverage, insurance coverage, and payment for vaccines for folks from zero to 64, and it will allow for the purchasing program that we currently have in the state to continue as it is within the state. It will also and that that funding program that we have that began a couple of decades ago help helps to pay for the vaccines and the immunizations that we have in our state. So I will go through the bill section by section. I want to say that it could be confusing as you read the bill, and I have two things I'll say. One, we have very limited amendments to the bill as it came over to us from the other body. We just have a couple of small ones. Secondly, I will say that we have the changes that are being made for the state health department with advice to make recommendations about immunization. So the program that we're putting in place will be a temporary program. So there's a date of 2031 where much of the bill reverts to where we currently are in statute, And I'll point out those changes as we go along. So it can be confusing as you read the bill to say, oh, is this changing in '31, or or is this staying the same? And I'll try to identify those things so that it it some clarity. But as you go through the bill and and just right up I've I've that's it. We'll we'll we'll we'll clarify as we go along. Section of one of the bill replaces the definition of of immunizations and gives that definition that's, meaning vaccines recommended by the c d CDC with, a new definition, a new phrase recommended immunizations, meaning vaccines and other immunizing agents providing protection against the disease pathogen that is recommended by the Commissioner of Health. So essentially, what we're doing is we're moving the the recommend recommended vaccine immunizations for the state of Vermont from the CDC to the Department of Health. It allows the department of Health to purchase recommended immunizations from the CDC or another vendor at the lowest cost. So this will continue the fund that we currently have in The States. There will be recommendations about which are the least expensive, vaccines to be purchased, and that will be through, a a process at the department. The first section also makes grammatical, organizational changes to the membership of the immunization funding advisory committee. So the Department of Health, the Commissioner of Health will have an advisory committee about the funding for immunizations, where to get the cheapest or least costly, immunization product. Section two is a a a new section for six years, and it put places the phrase recommended immunizations into statute, directing the commissioner of health to use periodic recommendations on the following. So recommended immunizations for children and adults, the appropriate age for recommended immunizations, the number of doses, the timing of doses, and so on. And then prior to issuing a recommended immunizations, the Commissioner must consult with the Vermont Vermont Immunization Advisory Council, which is currently existing. We'll we'll see later. We make a change here and there with that one. It's very tiny. So the commissioner will receive advice from the advisory council, and that will include folks such, professional groups. Will also include the CDC, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, and others. It provides immunity for a health care professional who prescribes, dispenses, or administers an immunization pursuant to the schedule recommended by the Commissioner of Health unless the health professionals action constitutes gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct. And we did ask judiciary to review this, and I believe that, the judiciary may have comment on that section. This section two also authorizes the commissioner to issue a standing order before to health care professionals under certain situations for recommended immunizations. It requires the Department of Health to prominently display information pertaining to recommended immunizations on its website and disclose when the commissioner's recommendations differ from the recommendations of the Vermont Immunization Advisory Council. Section three, it relates to the advisory council itself, And this is where, your committee on health and welfare did put an amendment in. We took out two members, who's it seemed redundant. We removed the board of nursing and the board of pharmacy members because there's an APRN, advanced practice registered nurse, and a practicing pharmacist on the advisory council, and that was acceptable to folks. In that section three, we add the council's duty to provide advice to the commissioner on recommended immunizations, and it also, it eliminates, the voting process for members of the advisory, council who are a part of the education system. Now the next sections are, effective until 07/01/2031. So there this is a replacing the word immunizations with recommended immunizations. So if you go through the next several pages, you'll see recommended immunizations under the insurance section, in section four, and under the health benefits plans, and section five. And then, section six relates to pharmacies pharmacists and then section seven to pharmacy technicians. The, section six, is in existence until 07/01/2031, and authorizes in this section authorizes pharmacists to prescribe, administer recommended immunizations to adults and flu and COVID and subsequent formulations or combination products to, patients ages five and older so long as it's consistent with the Commissioner's recommendations. And this reverts to underlying statute in 2,031. Section seven is another place where your Senate Health and Welfare made an amendment, and we added language related to pharmacy technicians to clarify what is currently in statute that would allow for a pharmacy technician to, administer immunizations, when there is a pharmacist in place and it establishes the conditions for that and to which patients 18 and older or five and older seeking certain vaccines. It also, removes references to CDC, recommendations. Then, sections eight through eight through 13 are effective on 07/01/2031. So this these sections allow for reversion to underlying statute, but, also, we've made some corrections to underlying statute. So in section eight, amending the immunization funding section restores many of the provisions from current law but retains language of definition of immunization referencing other immunizing agents to include that in the in the statute. And then it retains grammatical organizational changes, to the Immunization Funding Advisory Committee. Also in 2031, section nine, the Vermont, Immunization Advisory Council restores many of the provisions from current law, but retains the changes to the membership of the advisory council itself. Then in section 10, effective on 07/01/2031, the language related to group insurance policies or health benefit plans reverts back reverts to immunizations from recommended immunizations. Then also in section 12, the language regarding pharmacists reverts to what's currently in statute. Section seven is retained for the pharmacy technician. And then. Section 14 repeals the immunization recommendations language on 07/01/2031, replacing it with underlying, language. So then the sections one through seven and fourteen through 15 are effective on passage, and sections eight through 13 take effect 07/01/2031. So this, mister president, it

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: seem

[Senator Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden Southeast District)]: it sounds confusing. It's not. Essentially, what we are doing is providing for the commissioner of health through, its the various advisory council on, immunizations or the advisory committee on funding to make recommendations to the commissioner of health for a period of time that we believe, it's necessary while there's confusing confusion at the federal level. In 2031, it could happen before should, the legislature make a decision to change that date, that we'll see a reversion to the current status for accepting recommendations only through the CDC process. Mister president, that is the bill itself. We have took a lot of testimony from from folks and tried to wade ourselves through all the date changes and what's here and what's not here. We heard from legislative counsel. We heard from the bill reporter, representative Essex. We heard from commissioner of Department of Health. You heard from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the immunization program director at the Department of Health, the policy director at the Department of Health, the legal counsel of Department of Health, the president of the Nurse Practitioners Association, executive director of the HIV HCV Resource Center, member of the Health Choice Vermont, a pharmacist from Vermont, another member of the, house, representative Bert who wanted to propose an amendment that he had also proposed in the other body. We heard from the Vermont Medical Society, and, I think that's it. The vote out of committee was five zero zero, mister president, and we ask that, the senate support this, really important bill. Thank you, mister president.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, senator from Chittenden Southeast. I will now recognize senator from Chittenden Southeast for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden Southeast District)]: Thank you, mister president. Your senate appropriations committee searched high and low for, appropriations in the bill. We didn't find anything that anything. So we voted, five zero two to recommend the bill to the full senate. Thank

[Speaker 0]: you. Question now is shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on health and welfare? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham District)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate judiciary did take a look at a very narrow section regarding civil and administrative immunity. That section is on page 172 of today's calendar, subsection c. This section does provide that immunity to a health care professional who prescribes, dispenses, or administers an immunization, but they are not immune if they engage in gross negligent conduct or recklessness or intentional misconduct. By a straw poll, the senate judiciary committee unanimously did not have any further recommendations for how the language was drafted.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, senator. Question again. Shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on health and welfare? Senator from Franklin.

[Unidentified Senator from the Franklin District]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the senator of the bill, please?

[Speaker 0]: Presenter will be interrogated.

[Unidentified Senator from the Franklin District]: Mister president, this is gonna be a difficult question, but I just found it curious anyways as to on page eight on line six. It has the secretary of education and or their designee on the this committee, this board of order arrest. And you turn to page nine. Line eight, it says the secretary of education or designee shall not vote on this. I was just curious as to, what was the reason for the secretary of education being on this committee,

[Senator Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden Southeast District)]: mister president? Thank you, mister president. That that's actually a very good question. So the advisory committee is really basing its decisions on the science behind the appropriate immunization immunization schedule. And, it was it it what the folks from education would provide, perhaps, some advice around school issues, public school issues about kids entering school with or without vaccinations that was not really a part of the policy that the commissioner of health will be issuing necessarily, but it will be a part of the policy that schools will consider. So folks in education will be important to the discussion by the advisory, group, but, not fundamental to the, science of immunizations.

[Unidentified Senator from the Franklin District]: I thank you, mister president.

[Speaker 0]: Question again. Shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on health and welfare? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on health and welfare. Question now is shall the bill be read the third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay. The ayes have it, and you have ordered third reading of h five forty five. That brings us to the end of the orders of the day. Senator from Chittenden Southeast.

[Senator Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden Southeast District)]: Thank you, mister president. Pending announcements, I move that the senate stand adjournment until Tuesday, February 24 at 09:30AM.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Chittenden Southeast has proposed that the senate adjourn until 09:30AM, Tuesday, 02/24/2026. Are there any announcements? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate finance will meet at 01:00.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Washington.

[Unidentified Senator from the Franklin District]: Thank you, mister president. Senator appropriations will also be at 01:00.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Rutland.

[Unidentified Senator from the Franklin District]: Thank you, mister president. As well, the senate government operations committee.

[Speaker 0]: Are there any further announcements? Senator from Bennington. Senate education committee will meet at 01:15. Any further announcements? Seeing none, I would like to close today with a moment of personal privilege. My fellow senators, as of today, I've served nearly sixteen years in this chamber. And before that, I served four years as a school board member in the Burlington School District. That's fully twenty years of public service. When the next biennium begins this coming January, I will be turning 65 years old. To my mind, least, there's only one good thing about turning 65, only one good thing, and that is you don't need any other reason to lay down some of your work and some of your tools. So I will be retiring from the senate when this year winds down. My name will not appear on any ballot, and, of course, that means I will not be a candidate for president pro tem when the caucus meets this November to choose a leader. I tell you these things today because the good people in my district, Chittenden Central District, deserve time to make a well considered choice as to who will replace me. The same holds true for this chamber. I have always believed that these sorts of conversations should be longer rather than shorter. There are talented senators and candidates coming up behind me who deserve time to make their case. I think it's important as well that I not endorse anyone for senate or for pro tem, but as we go forward, I'll be happy to offer confidential advice to anyone who asks for it. To be clear, I will continue to do my level human best to lead this chamber until the very last vote of the twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six biennium. We have many difficult decisions still ahead of us, and I am absolutely ride or die until January. But at that point, I will return to writing and teaching, and the majority of you will return to this lovely chamber, which is very much as it should be. On the last night of the session, I promised to bore you all with some longer, more sentimental remarks. For now, though, I will just call the question. The senator from Chittenden Southeast has moved that the senate stand in adjournment until 09:30AM, Tuesday, 02/24/2026. Are you ready for that question? Senator from Chittenden Southeast.

[Unidentified Senator from the Chittenden Southeast District]: Mister President, in light of the very poignant and bittersweet news that that we just heard, I think prior to adjourning, although this will likely embarrass Mr. President, and although we will celebrate the Pro Tem at the end of session as well, this is our first opportunity to, thank the pro tem for always being such a forthright and ride or die and committed leader, in this esteemed chamber, and to thank him for giving us such an opportunity to have this conversation in advance, which doesn't often occur. So I think with that, I would invite my colleagues, if it's in order, to offer what will be the first of of many, hopefully, moments of celebration and affection.

[Speaker 0]: I Senator, I very much appreciate the sentiment. It will not be in order. It is no accident that I'm holding the gavel. So I I would like to conclude today with that. There will be plenty of time for everyone to say all the things that we would all like to say, but I do appreciate the sentiment.

[Unidentified Senator from the Chittenden Southeast District]: With that, mister president.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham District)]: I

[Unidentified Senator from the Chittenden Southeast District]: believe I still have the floor.

[Speaker 0]: You do. You do sense.

[Unidentified Senator from the Chittenden Southeast District]: I I'm trying to to acknowledge some glances and would ask mister president if it would be in order that the remarks just made be journalized.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: If

[Speaker 0]: the senator from Chittenden Southeast, the senior senator, is willing to withdraw her motion, an ensuing motion could be made.

[Unidentified Senator from the Franklin District]: Yes.

[Senator Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden Southeast District)]: Mister president, I will withdraw my motion. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Senator has withdrawn her adjournment motion, and I recognize the senator from Chittenden Southeast for her motion.

[Unidentified Senator from the Chittenden Southeast District]: Mister President, I would move that the remarks we just heard from the podium be journalized.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Chittenden Southeast has moved that preceding remarks be journalized. Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and those remarks will be journalized. My thanks to the senator. With that said, question remains. Oh, and senator, your motion again.

[Senator Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden Southeast District)]: Mister president, pending any further announcements, I move that the senate stand an adjournment until Tuesday, February 24 at 09:30AM.

[Speaker 0]: Senior senator from Chittenden Southeast has moved that senate stand in adjournment until 09:30AM, Tuesday, 02/24/2026. Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you have moved to stand in adjournment until 09:30AM, Tuesday, February 24.