Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Going on like this. He's leaving. Our daughter is laughing.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Yes. Senate, please come to order. Our devotional exercises will be conducted by the reverend Peter Plague of Waterbury Congregational Church.

[Rev. Peter Plague (Waterbury Congregational Church)]: Good afternoon.

[Senator David Weeks]: Good

[Rev. Peter Plague (Waterbury Congregational Church)]: afternoon. I don't know if you know, but last Sunday was holy, h o l I, not y. Well, I didn't know there would be a Hindu person in the crowd. I hope Hindu. Hindu. You you can correct me if I'm wrong,

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: and it is but

[Rev. Peter Plague (Waterbury Congregational Church)]: I had a conversation with one of my parishioners who is Hindu, and we're chatting after worship, and she told me it was holy. And she was excited because it was a lovely, warm afternoon, and they would get to go outside to participate in this celebration. Perhaps you, like me, don't recognize right off the bat that name, Holi, but I'm sure you'd recognize the ritual, Hindu men and women throwing packets of powdered chalk at one another until they are covered head to foot in brightly colored chalk. I didn't know anything about the reason for Holi, so I asked her. She said, oh, it's nothing terribly serious, mostly a celebration of spring. Indeed, some research on my own after our conversation reveals that the only text for this holiday are some poems and a few, written by a few ancient Indian poets and some lines about Krishna in some of their sacred texts. In the latter, Krishna, the god, complains to his mother that Radha is fair while he is dark, and she playfully suggests that he color her face. My parishioner observed that this celebration of spring with the coloring of Krishna and Radha is one of the few celebrations in in which men and women participate together. Interestingly, as I understand it in Hindu theology, the feminine Radha and the masculine Krishna come together to form the complete god. I also learned that most holy celebrations, participants throw packets of color at each other. Her tradition, however, is much more gentle and, she said, loving. They color each other with powder in their palms, and they touch each other's faces, and they hug each other, and they laugh. The symbolism of that tradition is obvious. The grace of God may burst forth like spring does, but it is a connected, graceful, sweet, loving, bursting forth. And the theology of her tradition is incarnated in their gentle dance of laughter and color. Spring has come, writes the poet. The wind carries the fragrance of blossoms. Forest boughers tremble with new leaves. Dark Krishna wanders there laughing, staining the garments of the cowherd girls with sprays of red from the flowering trees. Their cheeks glow like dawn. Their laughter fills the groves, and love plays everywhere in Vrindavan. So it's not mostly a celebration of spring, is it? What if this is what makes our work holy? Our work isn't neat or perfect, but we are willing nonetheless to enter into the beautiful, necessary mess of life together, willing to be marked by the vibrant, varied colors of the people we serve. Let us reach out hand to gentle hand and shape a common good, a commonwealth. May that be so for you and for me.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any announcements? Seeing none, we have S206 for referral affecting the appropriations of the state. It is referred to the committee on appropriations. And

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: that brings us to the orders of the day.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Mister president, I was hoping we could move directly to proposition four. We

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: have on the calendar for action a proposal of amendment to the Vermont constitution. Constitution. Chapter two subsection 72 of the Vermont constitution sets forth requirements for amending the constitution. Proposals can be initiated only at a biennial session that commences every four years. The next window of opportunity is 2027. Proposals must originate in the Senate and must be approved by two thirds of the total membership. This is the equivalent of the second reading of the proposal in the Senate. After senate approval, the house must concur by majority vote of its members. The house cannot attend amend the proposal. During the next biennial session, both the senate and the house must approve constitution with at least 16 votes in the affirmative in the Senate and at least a majority or of the quorum in the House. No amendments may be made by either the Senate or the House. A proposal of amendment is then voted on by the general populace at the next general election. If approved by a majority of the voters who vote, the proposal then becomes part of the constitution. The proposal under consideration today, proposal four, was approved by more than two thirds of the senate during the twenty twenty four biennium session and more than a majority of the house also in the 2024 session. Today is the equivalent of the third reading of the proposal. Under senate rule 83, the proposal was printed in the calendar upon direction given

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: by

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: the committee on rules. Also under senate rule 83, the proposal was on the notice calendar for six legislative days and is up for action for a third reading on the seventh day. Since no amendments are permitted at this time, the question to be voted on is, shall the senate concur in proposal four to the constitution and request the house concur? Proposal four is set out in full on pages three thirty eight of today's calendar. Full debate is in order. Please listen to the third reading of the proposal.

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

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate concur in proposal four to the constitution and request the concurrence of the house? When the vote is taken, it shall be by roll call. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Windham. Senator Hashim.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Thank you, mister president. So a couple of years ago, I

[Rev. Peter Plague (Waterbury Congregational Church)]: was I

[Senator Nader Hashim]: was here presenting prop four for the first time. It was, it was a very proud moment, and I'm just as proud to have to have the opportunity to present it the second time around as well. And during that first presentation, I spent a majority of the time describing why this amendment was necessary despite the fact that we have the fourteenth amendment in the US constitution. I presented multiple instances in which the fourteenth amendment had actually been used to further discrimination and how the US Supreme Court had inconsistently applied its underlying equal protection clause contrary to the original framers intent. I also provided a long list of examples that demonstrated that legislatures have codified laws that led to discriminatory treatment over the course of the almost two hundred and fifty years that our nation has existed. Now fortunately I had my speech from the first presentation to help me get ready for today's presentation and last night as I was looking at the speech and all of the examples, that I had in front of me thought to myself wow I must have talked for a very long time and nobody said it. Very kind. So I'm not going to, reiterate all of the examples, that were described last time and instead I'll just briefly repeat the text, that we had heard specifically the text that's on page three thirty nine that would be incorporated to Article 23 of our constitution. Quote that the people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. The state shall not deny equal treatment under the law on account of a person's race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin. Nothing in this article shall be interpreted or applied prevent the adoption or implementation of measures intended to provide quality of treatment and opportunity for members of groups that have historically been subject to discrimination. The characteristics described in the second sentence of the amendment all fall into different class ifications, that would, be under judicial review. All of the classifications listed have previously been described in either federal law, state law, or common law. The third sentence refers to the concept of remedying past discrimination, a doctrine that was first codified in the nineteen sixties. This sentence is meant to preempt the misuse of this amendment to further discriminatory practices. Any laws that future legislature may pass that are intended to remedy past discrimination must still follow common law and remain within the constitutionally prescribed limits. These laws and limits cannot be overcome or circumvented by state law due to the supremacy clause in The US constitution. This amendment if passed does not suddenly create, remove, or modify existing laws. It is possible for someone to challenge existing and future laws under this amendment but like all articles of constitution this serves as a framework

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: for our laws.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: This is a necessary and important amendment because I can't envision a Vermont where we would intentionally create or enforce laws in such a way that would cause unequal treatment against anyone based on their ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. And on the other hand I know that in the not so distant past, there were state legislatures that could not envision a society in which free black Americans or women could vote for own property. A lot can change for better or worse over the course of several decades or even a few years. Now at the beginning of the speech, mentioned I was proud of being able to present this amendment the first time around and I wasn't proud just because we voted yes unanimously, although that was pretty great, but rather I was proud because it was a reminder of what Vermont stands for. I know I've said this in the past a few times but I think it rings especially true in this context. In the four years that I've been in this chamber I've seen us have necessary and vigorous debates over a difference of opinion on certain policy issues but I've also seen a strong sense of unity when it comes to the most basic and fundamental Vermont values. What my own personal experiences in Vermont have shown me is that in this state we can coexist with our neighbors and fellow Vermonters even if they have different traits than us. We can and should be able to coexist with folks who may have different religious views or come from different countries or have a sexual orientation that's different than our own or any of the other traits, listed in the amendment. And laws that we create should follow those same ideas of accepting and coexisting with our fellow Vermonters without discriminating against them based on their characteristics or beliefs. So four out of five of the senators and senate judiciary were here during the first biennium in which we heard plenty of testimony and had a lot of deliberation. We did hear from a number of witnesses just to bring us all back up to speed on what the proposal entails and this biennium we heard from legislative council, Vermont racial justice alliance, the Vermont commission on women, Human Rights Commission, and the Vermont Family Alliance. Although our committee did not technically have possession of the proposal this biennium, the committee did take a straw poll to request that the Rules Committee release the proposal for, its second vote. And the straw poll result was five zero zero, and I asked for the senate support.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator David Weeks]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the presenter?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The presenter is interrogated.

[Senator David Weeks]: So for the personal clarification, I I understood that part four was actually going to amend article seven, but what I'm hearing now is it actually creates article 23. Is that correct?

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Yes. It's being added.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Yes.

[Senator David Weeks]: Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the senate concur in proposal four to the constitution to request the concurrence of the house? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Thank you, mister president. I I wanna say, I can't add to what the chair of judiciary has, said. This is a really important constitutional amendment that we have supported in the past. And and I it it started in 2016. I just want folks to know that this is a long time coming, a time where we were unable to introduce constitutional amendments, a time when we were under COVID, and now we have this opportunity to come together to pass an inclusive equal rights amendment to improve the lives of farm owners regardless of who they are. So equal protection for all individuals and groups is fundamental, and it's expression, as the senator has said, it's an expression of Vermont values to ensure our equal rights under the constitution to improve the human condition. So I very much, ask that we each support this constitutional amendment and look forward to its passage. Thank you, mister Clayton.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Alright. You ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Oops. Sorry.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: Point of order. I believe we had a senator who had to depart. I don't know if we would like to do a a call to make sure every senator who's present is available to be on the floor to vote.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The secretary always pushes the button to call all senators.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: Yeah. Yeah. I'm not sure if they saw that we were voting, so I wanna make sure.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: If you are ready for the question the secretary shall call the roll. Senator Baruth? Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Beck?

[Senator Scott Beck]: Yes.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Bennington. Bongartz. Yes.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator Brennan. Yes. Senator Brock.

[Senator Randy Brock]: Yes. Senator Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Yes. Senator

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Clarkson. Yes. Senator

[Senator Robert Norris]: Caledonia. Yes.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Senator Cummings. Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Gulick. Yes. Senator Hardy. Yes. Senator Harrison.

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: Yes. Senator

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Hashim. Yes. Senator Heffernan. Senator Ingalls. Yes. Senator Lyons. Yes. Senator Morley.

[Senator John Morley III]: Yes. Senator

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Yes. Senator Perchlik. Yes. Senator Ron

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

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yes.

[Senator Robert Norris]: Okay.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Ayes, 29. The nays, zero. And you have concurred in proposal four to the constitution and requested the concurrence of the house. We have on the calendar for action s one eighty three introduced on 01/06/2026. We referred to the committee on judiciary, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page two seventy of today's calendar, and that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S one eighty three, an act relating to home improvement and land improvement fraud.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Franklin, senator Norris, for the report of the committee.

[Senator Robert Norris]: Thank you, mister president. S one eight eight one eighty three, which is being passed out now. This was, in Vermont enacted a criminal statute regarding home improvement fraud in 2003. There have been several amendments over the years with the most recent amendment in 2023 adding land improvement fraud to the statute. In 2025, two trial court opinions found that the changes that the legislature made to the statute in 2015 essentially criminalized breach of labor contract, something that the US Supreme Court has found unconstitutional. The reasoning is that the thirteenth amendment to The US constitution prohibits indentured servitude, which includes prohibiting coerced labor by threat or use of criminal fines or imprisonment. An example of this is a contractor enters enters into a contract, does not complete the agreed upon work, and cannot afford to pay or refund the customer. Under the current statute, the contractor must complete the work or face a fine or imprisonment. The trial courts found that that scenario to be covered to be coerced labor that is akin to indentured servitude under the thirteenth amendment. Court opinions were in Washington and Orange County. The Orange County opinion is currently under appeal. While Vermont cannot criminalize breach of contract, it can criminalize fraud or deception in entering into a contract. The senate judiciary amendment s one eighty three reverts back to the language that was found in the statute prior to the 2015 amendments by requiring that the contractor intended to defraud the customer at the time the contract was entered into. This is done by requiring that the contractor knowingly enters the contract and promises performance that the person does not intend to perform or knows they will not perform in whole or in part. The knowingly clause obviously is a much higher bar to prove to the prosecuting attorneys. So thus, the crime is a fraud, not the breach of contract. The amendment also adds language to the statute to include change orders. You can find them on page one lines nine and eleven, page two lines four, eight, and nine. A change order is a formal written agreement to a construction contract that modifies the original scope, budget, or schedule. It acts as a legally binding agreement between the owner and contracts to add, delete, or alter work. With this amendment, if the original contract is changed by agreement of the parties, if the contractor enters into the change order with the intent to defraud the customer, the contractor can be held liable under the statute. That's as simple as this bill gets. It's an existing law. We made a few changes to it. We heard testimony from the manager of government, public affairs, down to director, Rockland and Martine, our distinguished team legislative council, Michelle Childs, Hillary Chuck Chittenden Ames. We've heard from the attorney general's office, director of policy and legislative affairs, Todd Delos, Erica Martha, state's attorney, Bennington County, Kim McManus, state's attorney's insurance, Tammy Merchant, concerned citizen, yours truly, the sponsor, Matthew Valery, the founder general of office, Jason Webster, co president, owner of Huntington Homes Incorporated. The vote out of the committee was five zero zero, and we ask for the senate to concur. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate amend the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've amended the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You've ordered third reading of s one eight three. We have on the calendar for action s two thirty introduced on 01/09/2026. It was referred to the committee on economic development, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page two seven one of the calendar. And that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S two thirty, an act relating to flexible working arrangements.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I recognize the set senator from Chittenden, senator Chittenden for the report of the committee.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Thank you, mister president. S two thirty is an employment practices bill. In many ways, it's a cleanup bill. A cleanup in two sections where we are synchronizing act 32, which we all voted on just a year ago, which was the parent and family leave act with the long standing Fair Employment Practices Act, which was passed back in 1963. Since the passage of Act 32, the Attorney General's office noticed a discrepancy in documentation as well as another item. There is a third part to this bill, section three, which I'll speak to, which is not related to act 32 that we passed, but instead just some additional cleanup language as we comb through our statutes to stay in, in sync with where they should be with federal laws as well. So section one, the General Assembly, as I mentioned, passed act 32 last session making significant changes to the parental and family leave act. The PFLA provides up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave to covered employees in each year. The unpaid leave can be used for a variety of purposes, including for employees or an employee's family member's serious health condition, rental leave, safe leave, and bereavement leave. One of the changes that we made in Act 32 was to allow airline flight crew who meet the federal definition of an employee under the Family and Medical Leave Act to be eligible for coverage under Vermont's law. There is another classified job function of a teacher that we did not include. So this synchronizes with that federal code so that there's less ambiguity and distance between what the federal defined job function is and our new Act 32 Parental Families Leave Act. So S230 extends the same ability to full time teachers with that definition. Really doesn't expand scope of coverage, just synchronizes. If a full time teacher of an elementary or secondary school system or an institution of higher education meets the definition of an employee for purposes of coverage under the federal law, then the teacher will be covered as an employee under the Vermont Parental Family Leave Act. Section two, act is about the Fair Employment Practices Act passed back in 1963. We're making some changes to that to synchronize with the more recently passed Act 32, Parental and Family Leave Act. Again, So just trying to oscillate between the two to give you an idea of where we're coming from. Act 32, now law, allows survivors of domestic violence to take up to twelve weeks of unpaid job protected leave for a variety of purposes, including seeking medical care, counseling, safety planning, and meeting with law enforcement. The Civil Rights Unit of the Vermont Attorney General's Office identified a disparity with documentation requirements in our recently passed Act 32 with the longstanding and established Fair Employment Practices Act. The Fair Employment Practices Act already includes protections for the status of victim of crime, but without this language to synchronize that term context, leaves opportunity for conflicting interpretations. The lack of alignment between these statutes, the recently passed act 32 and the already enacted Fair Employment Practices Act may leave survivors vulnerable to adverse employment actions after taking legally authorized safe leave simply due to differing documentation standards. So this section of two thirty would more closely align these provisions and ensure survivors can fully access both protections without unintended documentation inconsistencies and uncertainty from related but different state statutes. To be clear, employers are permitted to require employees to provide documentation to support their request for the various types of unpaid leave. Act act 32 includes a list of documents that a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking could provide, if requested, to the employer. Based on discussion in your Senate Economic Development and General Affairs Committee, section two at subdivision subchapter four ninety five b 15 e romanette numeral four adds an additional requirement to the self attestation source of documentation. A statement that the information contained in the self attestation is true and accurate to the best of the employee's knowledge or belief, and an acknowledgement that if this statement is false, the employee would be subject to penalty for perjury or other sanctions in at the discretion of the court. Finally, section two adds cross references to other statutes for definitions of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking consistent with the cross references in the PFLA. Section three, relatively unrelated to the previous two, but still in the Fair Employment Practices Act, This seeks to repeal a section of the Fair Employment Practices Act, again, 1963, that has been unlawful for over thirty years. Section four ninety five g appears to permit, institutions of higher education to require tenured faculty to retire, to require that tenured faculty retire at the age of 70. However, in 1986, Congress, US Congress, passed amendments to the Age Discrimination and Employment Act prohibiting compulsory retirements for most workers, but a special exception was allowed for mandatory retirement of tenured faculty at age 70 to continue until 12/31/1993, that time has now passed. Therefore, since 01/01/1994, it has been unlawful for institutions of higher education to have mandatory retirement for faculty based solely on age. Section three removes this outdated provision from the statute. The Senate was also inspired to bring forward this order to support this language because of recent announcement of one of our esteemed members, our pro tem, who stated he was retiring from this role but continuing to teach at the great University of Vermont. And since he volunteered in that announcement that hit his age, he's getting close to that 70 and we don't want him to get any ideas about pulling back from his commitments to the university because those students need as much Philip Baruth as they can possibly get. I hope this inspires him to stay up there as long as he is so willing. Section four is the effective date, which is 07/01/2026. And also after passage in section four, the title of this bill would be amended to be an act relating to fair employment practices. Your committee heard from Emily Adams, Carrie Brown, Todd Delos, Charlie Glisserman, Rebecca McBroom, Andrew Perchlik, Colin Robinson, Megan Sullivan, Sophie Sedatney, and others. Your committee on economic development and general affairs voted five zero zero, and we ask this senate to concur. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on economic development? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You've amended the bill as recommended by the committee on economic development. Question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have ordered third reading of s two thirty.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: We

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: now have third reading of h six forty nine, an act relating to captive insurance companies. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H six forty nine, an act relating to captive insurance companies.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it and we have passed H six forty nine in concurrence. We have on the calendar for action S 173, an act relating to workers compensation and the Vermont Labor Relations Board introduced on 01/06/2026. It was referred to the Committee on Economic Development, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as set forth in today's calendar starting on page three twelve, and that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the appropriations of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on economic development. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S one seventy three, an act relating to workers compensation and the Vermont Labor Relations Board.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Rutland, senator Weeks for the report of the committee.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Thank you, mister president. So first, s one seventy three, the problem that we're trying to solve here. First off, roughly sixteen thousand Vermonters are injured every year on at the workplace. Of this, 250 workers on average each year, which is about 1.5% are out of work for ninety days or greater. The ninety day milestone for worker out of work is significant.

[Senator David Weeks]: Here, they are screened for vocational rehabilitation benefits. Under current law, a worker is required to undergo an initial screening at the ninety day point to determine whether the worker is entitled to a full screen with a certified vocational rehabilitation counselor. The vast majority of all initial screenings are passed to the full screening. The initial screening by non specialists is seen as an unnecessary burden and all sides agree. So a little additional background, vocational rehabilitation services are provided when a worker's injury prevents the worker from returning to a suitable employment from which the worker has previous training or experience. Vocational rehabilitation services are specifically tied to restoring an employee's earning ability. Services can take many different forms, including resume writing, interview skills, counseling, ergonomic modifications, assistance with job placement, vocational training, and education. Most injured workers do not need vocational rehabilitation services because they are medically returned they're medically released to return to work and the employer has suitable work available for the worker or medical evidence already indicates that the worker will not be able to return to work given the severity of the injury. The bill only has two sections. First, vocational rehabilitation. Provides that a worker who requests services or has been out of work for more than ninety days. This section removes the initial screening requirement and they refer directly to a vocational rehabilitation counselor. The second bit of the section one amends the Department of Labor's workers compensation form to explain to the worker that the right that they have the right to request vocational rehabilitation services in the future if the work injury continues to inhibit to affect the workers ability to earn their pre injury wages and allows injured workers to initiate rehabilitation services if the employer fails to do so. Pretty straightforward. Section two deals with vocational rehabilitation working group and report. Creates a working group to provide recommendations back to the general assembly on how to improve the current system. The working group is composed of the Director of Workers' Compensation from the Department of Labor, two representatives of Workers' Compensation claimants, two representatives of compensation carriers and insurance, and two Vermont certified vocational rehabilitation councils. The working group's members other than the director are appointed one by the speaker and two by the committee and committees. The first meeting of the working group shall be held by 08/14/2026 and may meet up to five times. The group may cease to will cease to exist upon submission of the report to the General Assembly on 12/15/2026. The bill sets forth several specific questions for the working group to consider. It does not hold the boundaries to those questions. The Department of Labor will provide the support to the working group. The effective date of the bill is upon, if passed is 07/01/2026. Witnesses included the Director of Workman's Compensation and Safety from the Department of Labor, the Executive Director of the Labor Relations Board, the vocational the vocational counselor from the Catanon case management organization, the government relations director from Premier Premier attorneys at law, the attorney an attorney from the Vermont Association of Justice, also a lobbyist from the same organization, the bill sponsor Senator Ram Hinsdale, our own Office of Legislative Counsel Sophie Sadaki. The committee vote was five zero zero and a request for the body to join the committee on economic development, housing, and general affairs in support of s one seventy three. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Washington District, senator Watson, for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thanks, mister president. Senator appropriations did take a look at this bill, we were, particularly interested in the compensation for reimbursement for the working group, particularly for the members of the committee that are not state employees. And since the money for this was to be made from monies appropriated to the Department of Labor and the Department of Labor did testify to us that they felt comfortable that they would have money for this in their budget, The senate appropriations did not feel the need to add any further amendment to this, and so we're supporting the the bill as as amended by economic development, that's on a vote of five zero two. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: So the question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on economic development? Are you ready for the question? If so all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it, and you've amended the bill as recommended by the committee on economic development. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have ordered third reading of s one seventy three. Passing over. Which one? Yep. Okay. We have on the calendar for action s two thirteen introduced on 01/07/2026. It was referred to the committee on natural resources and energy, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page three twenty four of today's calendar and that when so amended the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S two thirteen An act relating to the use of smart meters by public water systems.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Addison District, senator Hardy, for the report of the committee on natural resources.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. This is a bill that came about like many of the bills that we do in this chamber because of a question from a constituent who asked me why do I have to get a smart meter for my water supply at my home and if I say I don't want the smart meter why does the water company charge me for that? And so I started looking into that to try to answer his question and I learned a whole bunch of information about water meters and electric meters and the utility infrastructure that tells us how much we are using of water or electric or in some cases gas and that's what came about in this bill in s 02/13, and then your committee on natural resources did its magic and added a few things to it. So I'm gonna mostly just take you through the bill, which you can find on page three twenty four of today's calendar. And the beginning of the bill lays out a bunch of definitions. And the definition starting on page three twenty five of the calendar of advanced metering infrastructure device, which is what the technical term for smart meter is. And this was an important thing to make sure that we get a flexible definition of a smart meter. A meter, of course, is something that measures the use of something and it means a meter or related communication equipment that is part of an advanced metering infrastructure system and enables measurement of utility usage and two way communication between the meter and the utility and includes both wired and wireless devices. Rather than using the term smart meter, the committee in its wisdom and with the help of our friends at the department that oversees technology that I'm forgetting the name of at the moment, we came up with a much more flexible definition instead of using the term smart meter, which is a much more ADS Agency of Digital Services, thank you senator, Which is a much more flexible definition of that. So that is the beginning of the bill is just about the definition of what a smart meter is or advanced metering infrastructure. And I have, great visuals if anybody wants to see how these things work. You can find out a lot of cool stuff on the Internet about how these systems work if anyone is interested. One of the concerns that my constituent had and that others have when we start using something, advanced metering technology or quote unquote smart meters, is what about cybersecurity? And some of you might have heard of recently about cybersecurity as it relates to our water systems. So the committee added, a provision in paragraph h of the bill that is that is related to our cybersecurity advisory council. And that if the agency of natural resources secretary requests that the cybersecurity council come up with recommendations or guidelines for how to make sure that our water systems that are using smart meter technology have appropriate cybersecurity guidance, then the the secretary can request this and the advisory council is required to come up with guidance that they may issue to our water systems to ensure that our public water systems and critical infrastructure are safe from cyber security attacks. This is not part of the permit conditions for the water systems, but it's guidance that can be issued, in order to to keep our water systems, safe. And in order to protect customer rights, there is not a requirement that someone has to engage with a smart meter technology or that infrastructure. They can refuse to to to have a smart meter if they are concerned about it in their home, but a water system, we we made it so that a water system can charge for, not using a a smart meter. The reason is because smart meters or infrastructure, that advanced metering infrastructure saves a lot of money for our water systems. It saves water and it saves the system money. One of the most important things that it can do is identify if there is a leak, and, the water utility can say, oh, there is a leak at Ruth Hardy's house. I need to call her up and tell her that there is a leak so that she can fix that leak, and it saves me money and it saves the system money because they've detected a leak. It also saves money in personnel because advanced metering technology can be read through walking by or driving by and having two way communication between the water meter and the utility, and so that it saves on personnel costs for the water utility. So therefore having someone have a reasonable charge for not using a water metering saves the system the money or the cost of the customer not choosing to have a water meter. It also says that, we also included in the bill that that removal of an existing water meter is possible and that the utility could not choose and could not charge to remove an existing water meter. So So once we started talking about water meters, of course the other kinds of meters came up and so we addressed electric meters in the bill and made the same provisions for electric meters because while we had in statute that electric meters could that customers could opt out of electric meters, electric companies could not charge for for opting out of electric meters. But with the same logic of saving customers and the whole system money, we allow for the same provisions for electric meters and water meters. And you'll see in the bill on page three twenty eight, there were some expired reports that we are deleting from statute. One is a report from 2024 '14, I'm sorry, 2014 and 2016 that the Commissioner of Public Service did about how much money smart meter technology saves and that was left in statute. Usually, these are deleted, but that was left in statute because at the time, there was a lot of concern about smart meters. This report, which I have skimmed, did show that that smart meters do save millions of dollars in a system over over the course of several years and that that that the conclusion was that they were cost effective. The second report was a report from December, January 2013 that was done by the Commissioner of Health because it because at the time there were concerns about the health impacts of smart meters and the radio technology and if that could have an impact on human health. That report, was completed and the report found that the impact on human health was de minimis or non existent and that there are not health impacts from the use of smart meters. So we, event we did delete these two reports. They were done over a decade ago, and the results of those reports were positive. So, that is the the bill, mister president, is that it just allows for the use of smart meters, but and and allows for the charging for not for not opt opting in, but that both electric and water utilities can use them and require customers to have them but not charge if or but in charge of a customer opts out. You may might ask what about gas companies? We didn't have a chance to deal with gas companies and so we will say that we asked the house to look into that. We heard from a number of witnesses as you might imagine all of the representatives from the various electric cooperatives representatives from water commissions including the rural water association and representatives from both large and small water districts. We heard from the Commissioner of the Agency of Digital Technology, the Agency of Natural Resources that oversees public drinking water regulations, and our of course our amazing legislative council attorney, mister O'Grady. And yes. So that is the list of, witnesses, and the vote in committee was five zero zero. Mister president, we ask for

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: your support.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on natural resources and energy? Senator from Orange.

[Senator John Benson]: Mister president, may I, interrogate the presenter?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator John Benson]: I just want to know, I see the emphasis on water systems and whether or not the committee discussed that even if an individual has a private water supply, but it is connected to the municipal wastewater system that the way that many times we monitor the wastewater flow is through a water meter, and so it is the more reliable and the cheaper method of actually keeping track of water and wastewater usage in a facility. So I don't see any reference to wastewater in the bill. And so I just want to make sure that this doesn't somehow prohibit the use of a water meter on a private water supply, but is used actually for establishing rate for wastewater usage.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: for that question, President. This bill would not prohibit the use of smart meter or advanced metering infrastructure on a wastewater system. We did not actually addressed wastewater systems in the bill and the water system is focused on public water systems, so not private wells or private water systems.

[Senator Anne Watson]: But there's nothing in the

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: bill that would prohibit the use of these types of meters for wastewater or in a private water system.

[Senator Robert Norris]: Okay. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on natural resources and energy? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You've amended the bill as recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. Ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of s two thirteen. We have on the calendar for action s two twenty three introduced on 01/08/2026, it was referred to the committee on natural resources and energy, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as set forth in today's calendar starting on page three twenty nine, and that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. The bill was then referred to the Committee on Appropriations, which reports it has considered the bill and recommends that the amendment proposed by the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy be amended as set forth in the calendar for starting on page three thirty one. And that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S two twenty three, an act relating to water quality of the waters of Vermont.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I recognize the senator from Bennington District, senator Bongartz, for the report of the committee on natural resources.

[Senator Seth Bongartz]: Mister president, s two two three is a study, just a study, but it's a study of long time coming. Vermont's anti degradation policies and late classification systems are dysfunctional. We're decades late in adopting the anti degradation rule, and our reclassification system has come through Brian and Ball. We're living under an interim policy that results in regulatory uncertainty and deteriorating health of our spectacular inland lakes, the worst of both worlds. This bill came about in part through a group of business community and environmental community, members recognizing it's in their mutual best interest to create a functional system. We've been operating under an interim interim policy for, dozens of years that lacks sufficient definition and transparency to provide predictable outcomes. It can therefore feel and in fact be arbitrary. This bill pulls together a study committee made up of legislators, the secretary of ANR, and ANR scientists, business interests, environmental leaders, and a representative of the Lakes and Ponds Association to try to forge a path forward. It's in everybody's interest to fix this dysfunctional system. There's only two sections. The first section is about this really just about the report, and I'll get to that, the the the goals in a minute. Membership, just to be clear about this, two from the house, two from the senate, the secretary of ANR or designee, a DEC department of environmental conservation water quality scientist or technical staff member appointed by the secretary, two persons representing business, industry, or development is subject matter knowledge, One appointed by the speaker, one appointed by the committee on committees. Two nonprofit, environmental organizations, one by the speaker, one by the committee on committees, and one from the Federation of Lakes and Ponds appointed by the governor. The charge is to develop an inventory of existing waters in their classifications, including candidate waters for reclassification, assess our obligation under the Clean Water Act as of 01/01/2026 to adopt an anti degradation rule and barriers to adopting such a rule, evaluate the statutory and regulatory framework governing Class A waters including whether modifications are needed in order to affect reclassification and how to provide regulatory certainty, evaluate whether we are actually protecting ecological integrity of our lakes and ponds, and again to provide regulatory certainty. So, it is the group the group is to then recommend legislative amendments and identify any rules, policy, proceed or procedures that may require revision to affect the strengthening of environmental protection, providing regulatory certainty, and support supporting public uses of water. ANR and legislative council will assist. The report is due on December 15 per diem for legislative members. And section two is just that the act will be

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: support. Recognize senator from Washington district, senator Watson for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. So, appropriations did, take a look at this bill and, knowing that money is tight often, in those situations, we put in contingency clauses to say that the it does not need to move forward if the if it doesn't get funded. However, this provision, this contingency provision that the Appropriations Committee is proposing, just affects, section one g, which is the compensation, which is to allow for the appointments of, folks to continue to move forward even in the case that no money is appropriated, for reimbursements and expenses, in the budget. And so that that is why we have this, section one a contingency funding, and that was, recommended by the appropriations committee on a vote of five zero two.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: First question is, shall the recommendation of the amendment of the committee on natural resources be amended as proposed by the committee on appropriations? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You have amended the recommendation of amendment as proposed by the Committee on Natural Resources. The question now is shall the senate amend the bill as recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources as amended? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it. You've amended the bill as recommended by the committee on natural resources and energy as amended. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have ordered third reading of s two twenty three. Now have a house proposal of amendment s 16 act relating to establishing the farm security special fund to provide grants for farm losses due to weather conditions. It was passed by the house with a proposal of amendment. The bill was then recommitted committee on agriculture, which reports that the senate ought to concur in the house proposal of amendment reporting for the committee senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Thank you, mister president. So many senators in the chamber will remember last session passing this bill as sixties. Even though it appears in the calendar as a strike off today, 95% of what we passed is in the bill. The house proposal amendment really only changes very few provisions. So it establishes a permanent special fund to provide financial assistance to farms and forestry operations impacted by severe weather events. The house proposal expanded the program to apply to those forestry operators as well as farming. So consequently, the program is now known as the Farm and Forestry Operations Security Special Fund. Many of the changes in the house passed version relate to adding forestry operations as eligible, including changes to the name of the program and indeed name of the act. The house also amended the form of payments from the fund. Payments in the senate version were grants. The house replaced grants with awards, which are allowed under state law and actually have fewer administrative requirements than grants. This will allow more timely payment back to the farmers. The house clarified the maximum award from the fund. When we have the bill, we capped the maximum award at a $150,000. The house amended that to a farm to be 5% of the undesignated and unreserved funds in the farm and forestry operations at the beginning of each fiscal year, provided that the award should not exceed our figure of a 150,000 per farm. House removed authority from the senate bill that required the secretary of agriculture to establish criteria for the amount of an award based on the annual net income of the farm in relation to the median net income of all farms in Vermont. The advocates believe the information would actually not be available at the time of application or indeed at the time of the need of the farm. The house did add a requirement that applicants provide a list of any state grants or loans received for the purpose of the farm or forestry operation business in the last five years to include the amount, the source, purposes of the funding received. This was added to determine if the applicants have received previous awards under the program or other programs as part of a determination of the amount of an award. The house authorized the secretary of agriculture food markets to pay reasonable administrative expenses from the fund for the purpose of administering the requirements of the program, and the house also finally inserted a contingency funding clause providing that the agency of agriculture would not have a duty to implement this program if no appropriations were indeed provided for the program. So the committee vote was five zero zero to concur with the house proposal of amendment, and we would ask this body to join us in our concurrence. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the Senate concur in the House proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, President. I just wanna thank the Ag Committee, the Chair, the Vice Chair, the Reporter, and all the members of the committee are sticking with this bill. It started over a year ago in this chamber and they did a lot of great work on it. It was inspired by farmers in my district and many other districts that were impacted by the huge floods that we had in '23 and '24 and the freeze in '23 and the drought in '25. So I, applaud the committee for sticking with it and I hope that our appropriations committee can find some money to get this off the ground. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and the senate has concurred with the house proposal of amendment on s 60. That completes the orders of the day. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Thank you, mister president. Pending announcements, I move that the senate stand in adjournment until 1PM, Thursday, 03/12/2026.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any announcements? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: The Climate Solutions Caucus will not be meeting tomorrow, but there will be a contingency of 50 to 70 high school students who are engaged on this topic will be in the building. And if you'd like to join them for a bring your own lunch, they're gonna be in Room 11 and Room 10 at noon, and they would love to meet you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: No pizza. Senator from Windham.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, Mr. President. Senate institutions will meet five minutes after the gavel, and we have folks waiting for us.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Thank you, mister president. Senator appropriations will meet at 02:15.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Thank you, mister president. Senate finance will meet five minutes after the fall of the gap.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Rutland. Thank you, mister president.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Government operations will meet immediately after the fall of the gap.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Bennington.

[Senator Seth Bongartz]: Mister president, the senate education committee will meet at 02:30.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: Farmers night will meet at 07:30 in the House Chamber and I encourage everyone to come it will be beautiful voices for all seasons to grow a choral group from Morrisville and they'll be playing some of your they'll be singing some of your favorite things Cole Porter, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Rogers and Hammerstein, Jerome Kern, John Rutland, and many others. So it's a wonderful call group. They've come to us a couple years ago, and it's great to have them back. Seven thirty in the house chamber. I'd like to see more of you there. You've all rested now from town meeting break, and you need to rest from crossover week. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: If I'd heard Led Sepp Led Sepplin, you'd have had me. Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, the senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate stand in adjournment until 1PM, Thursday, 03/12/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it. We'll stand in adjournment until 1PM, Thursday, 03/12/2026.