Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: What? Phil, we're about to roll here. Alright. Nice to meet you.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: 2, 467. Will

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: senate please come to order? We will observe a moment of silence in lieu of a devotional. Thank you. Are there any announcements? Seeing none, we have bills for referral. We have Senate Bill s two thirty two being on the calendar for notice and carrying an appropriation under rule 31 is referred to the committee on appropriations. S three twenty five being on the calendar for notice and carrying an appropriation under rule 31 is referred to the committee on appropriations. S three twenty seven being on the calendar for notice and carrying an appropriation under rule 31 is referred to the committee on appropriations. We have a house bill for reference. H seven fifty three, an act relating to utility service disconnections and rate payer protections introduced by representative Torrey and others. It passed the house on 03/13/2026. Listen to the first reading.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H seven fifty three, an act relating to utility service disconnections and rate payer protections.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, it is referred to the committee on finance. We now have h eight forty nine, an act relating to civil action for damage for deprivation of federal constitutional rights of any government official introduced by representative Lalonde. It passed the house on 03/13/2026. Listen to the first reading.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H eight forty nine, an act relating an act relating to a civil action for damages for deprivation of federal constitutional rights by any government official.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Now you've heard the first reading of bill, it's referred to the committee on judiciary. Orders of the day. We have s one eighty nine for third reading. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to third reading.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S one eighty nine, an act relating to an approval process for reducing or eliminating hospital services.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Now you've heard the third reading of the bill and the question is shall S 189 pass. 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 s one eighty nine. We now have s two zero three for third reading. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none listen to the third reading.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S two zero three, an act relating to penalties for second or subsequent violations of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it and we've passed s two zero three. We now have s three thirteen. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: S three thirteen, an act relating to transforming Vermont's career technical education system.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have passed s three thirteen. We have on the calendar for action S 138, an act relating to commercial property assessed clean energy projects. It was introduced on 04/01/2025, and 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 six zero six of today's calendar, and 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 thirty eight, an act relating to commercial property assessed clean energy projects.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I recognize the senator from Addison, senator Hardy, for the report of the committee.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. For those of you who would like to follow along the calendar, this is on page six zero six of today's calendar. C PACE is a term that means commercial property assessed clean energy projects. So C PACE projects. And it's a program that it provides. It's a financing tool that allows property owners to finance the upfront prop costs of qualified energy, water, and resilience projects, with funding through a voluntary assessment through a town's property tax bill. So it is something that's been adopted by over 30 states, so this is not a new concept that would be unique to Vermont, and also Vermont already has what's called a residential PACE program for homeowners. Homeowners could sort of get this financing mechanism already to put solar panels on their house or to insulate their house or something, But the residential project program has not been very well utilized. Not a lot of residential property owners have taken it up and not a lot of towns have opted to do the residential program. But we think that there might be more towns and more property owners who are interested in the commercial property assessed clean energy projects or C PACE. And so that is why your committee on natural resources has moved forward with creating this bill. And you can follow along, and I'm going to take you a little bit through section by section with some commentary involved. First, to create a C PACE program, towns, a legislative body must vote to allow it. So the Select Board, City Council Board of Alder people need to vote to say, yes, we want to create a C PACE district. That district is essentially the entire town, but they need to vote to do it because it is using the town's property tax collection mechanism as a way to to, collect loan payments. And it also puts a lien on the property that travels with the property to make sure that that loan is repaid. So the town votes to create a C PACE District, and then the property owners, which are in this case commercial property, so they can be businesses, warehouses, apartment buildings with more than four units. So this is not not residential. These are our our business owners who want to upgrade their property to make them more energy efficient, to make them more resilient to flooding, to make them use less water. And so they would apply to be part of the C PACE program. Before they're allowed, there has to be a vote of the town's legislative body, and they have to get an energy analysis to make sure that the projects they're proposing are actually going to save energy or save water or save or become make their buildings more resilient. So there's a process for making sure that the proposed fixes to the property are going to actually indeed be more energy resilient. And you can see this on the bottom of page six zero seven to top of page six zero eight are the is the analysis that they need to do, where energy or water usage is proposed in energy analysis by a licensed engineer engineering firm that shows that this would result in decreased use of energy or water or reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. So in each case, it's an energy study by a licensed engineer that would certify that these programs are actually going to or that this work is actually going to do what it needs to do. So that's two things. The third thing is that they need to get permission from their mortgage lender, and the mortgage lender has to provide permission, so that the lien on the property for the CPACE program would go ahead of the mortgage lien in the list of financial liens on the property so that the CPACE program would only be behind property taxes. So if something happens, the the property owner would have to first pay back property taxes, second pay the, CPACE loan, and then third, the mortgage, and then fourth, any other and so etcetera. But in order for that to happen, they've got to get permission from the bank that holds their mortgage. Once they've gotten that permission and the bank will do their own analysis to decide whether it's a good risk for the bank, Once they've done that, then they can go into the CPACE program. And that you can see this language on page six zero nine in the middle of the page. Paragraph E, prior to entering into the written assessment contract, the property owner shall obtain and furnish to the municipality a written statement executed by each holder of a mortgage or deed of trust on the property, securing indebtedness in their sole and absolute discretion that consents to the assessment and indicates that the assessment does not constitute an event of default under the mortgage or deed of trust. So this is to protect banks and other mortgage holders from a default because of a C PACE loan. So there are we wanted to make sure that banks were protected, mortgage mortgages were protected, were mortgage jurors evasers, both of them, everybody's protected, that also that towns are protected so that they do not have to put the town funding in on the line for this. So after they get permission from the select board, the lender, the town can and they've done the energy analysis, then they they get a CPACE loan through a regular lending organization that is providing CPACE loans. It could be another bank in our community or there are national organizations that provide these loans, or it could be VITA. VITA also is potentially interested in being lender in this program. And then a town can contract with a program administer administrator to administer this program to collect the the payments to provide all of the information to the lender. And so there is a section in the bill. It is section three

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

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: two and seventy seven on the top of page six ten, the CPAs program administration. And towns can as I said contract with program administrators to administer the program so that towns are not on the hook for actually administrating it. And I think one really important provision is that the town, a municipality that unlike the residential property, and this is one of the reasons why lots of towns have not subscribed to the residential program because there is some financial risk for towns to do it. But in this program, we made sure that there is no financial risk to town. So in section four on page 11, a municipality that enters into a written agreement with a property owner under chapter of subchapter three of this chapter shall not incur any indebtedness or otherwise finance projects under this chapter nor shall be liable for the failure of the performance of the nor pledge the full faith and credit of the municipality. So municipalities do not have to pledge their full faith and credit. They do not have to be financially obligated for the project or they don't have to be obligated for the project actually saving energy or doing those things. That is on the property owner determine. And so we wanted to make sure that towns were not taken advantage of in this program. So just really quickly going through the bill now that you have all the basics of it, the first section of the bill starting on top of page six zero seven lays out the vote of the municipality, the agreements between the municipality and the lenders, the process for doing the energy analysis, and the process for getting permission from the bank and the mortgage holder for making sure that

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: they have permission.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Top of page six ten is the language about program administrators and the requirements for program administrators. These are entities that towns can contract with. We made sure that a bank can't be a lender and a program administrator. They can be one or the other, but they can't do both jobs. Then there's a section about the rights of property owners, the liability of the municipality, and the release of the lien on the property. And this is after the release of the lien is after the full loan has been paid. And then collection of assessments is done by the program administrator and a lien for an assessment of this chapter shall be exempt from the provisions of this section except upon receipt of consent from lenders. So again, making sure the lenders agree to it. And a lot of the language in here is just integrating the C PACE program into the residential PACE program. So this would take effect on July 1 and the first ones that could start to happen are January 1 after a town has voted to create a seat case district. The vote in committee was five-zero-zero and we heard from a number of witnesses including the sponsor of the bill, the senator from Chittenden South, senator Chittenden, of course, our legislative council, the Bankers Association, the Department of Financial Regulations, Aveda, the Vermont Economic Development Authority, the League of Cities and Towns, the Chamber of Commerce, and then a board member of the c PACE Alliance, which is a national organization that, advocates and oversees c PACE programs nationally. And so a lot of the language in here was recommended as part of the sort of, national sort of standards for these programs. Again, the vote was five zero zero and we hope the Senate will support this. It just provides another financing mechanism for towns and property owners to use to make sure that properties are as energy efficient as possible, mister president. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on natural resources and energy? Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Yes, brother. I'm sure. I was wondering if I could ask a I was really looking.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Wondering if I could interrogate the report of the bill, please. Mister President, section thirty two seventy six page six zero seven, written agreement, consent of property owners, energy savings analysis, lender consents. Going down through a and b and one and all of that, it basically says that there needs to be a full scale analysis of the efficiencies of the project or whether the project will pay back. I was just wondering if the committee took any testimony from some of the environmental groups such as BPERG or other ones that this would be cost prohibitive to the project moving forward.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: We did not hear from V PERG, but we did hear from, as I said, the C PACE board member that oversees these programs nationally. This is a very standard component of these programs nationally. The the point of them is, as I said, to upgrade properties to make them more energy efficient. Sometimes that means, you know, putting solar panels on them. Sometimes it means re insulating them, etcetera, Changing something, their water heaters and things like that. And this is a this is a standard part of the of the agreements nationally to make sure that they are meeting energy efficient needs and the standards of national state or local standards for energy efficiency.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: I guess why I raised the question Mr. President is that we spent a little time in Senate on some projects and proposing that any of the solar projects are to move forward should have this study. And we heard testimony from various groups of folks that said that this was impossible to do and it would prohibit any project from being able to move forward. So I find it odd that they wouldn't have come in and express those same concerns. I I thank the reporter of

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: the bill

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: and I just I I just find it very very odd that that the same concerns are being raised in one area wouldn't be raised in another. Actually deemed almost impossible for that for those types of analysis to be conducted to move a project forward and would price it out of the market. But thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Franklin.

[Senator Robert Norris]: Thank you, mister president. Just a couple of questions. One, I maybe I missed it when I interrogate the report of the bill.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The reporter's interrogated.

[Senator Robert Norris]: I can't see in here, and I probably just read over it. I see where they the legislative body puts it out to a vote. They, the voters vote to get into the district, but I don't see a place where is there a where they can opt out of this, mister president, after everything has been

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: That is a good question. I don't think I don't think that so once they've created the district, these are loans that are twenty to thirty year loans, and so, they could, probably vote to say we're not gonna do anymore, but once one is entered into they they kind of have to stick with it until the loan is repaid but we don't have explicit language I don't believe that would require a vote to get out of a district or to de designate a district, but I think it would probably just take a vote of the legislative body to say no we don't want to do any more of these, but we could add language to make that more clear if that would help, the questioner.

[Senator Robert Norris]: Thank you, mister president. I just want to make sure that they may not be locked into eternity in reference to this and they do have that ability to opt out if they so choose. The second one is, you mentioned a special assessment in several different places throughout. Is that a tax?

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: It is not. So it is, it is called a special assessment because the collection of the loan it's basically a loan repayment or the yeah. A loan repayment. And, it is collected through the mechanism of property tax collection. So if there's a building in the town that is getting that is part of the CPAs program, when the town collects the property tax payments, they would also collect the payments from the CPACE loans or they can ask, they can contract with a program administrator to collect the payments from the towns. The towns are involved in large part because the towns have to put a lien on the property and the lien on the property is essentially the collateral for the repayment of these loans. So it is not it is not a tax it is a loan repayment.

[Senator Robert Norris]: Thank you, mister president. And one final question on page six eleven at the top of the page where it's underlining this a municipality may charge fees to cover the operation under this chapter. Who are these fees charged to?

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Yeah. They may charge the fees to the entities, to the businesses who are taking out the loans or participating in the CPACE program. So if there are 10 businesses that are participating in the program in order to cover the cost of the administration of the program they could charge fees to do so, to pay the program administrator or to cover their own costs. But these would be they're not state fees they're municipal fees.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I thank you report. Thank you, mister president. Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the reporter?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The reporter's interrogated.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you, mister president. So, Adam, I I understand the intent of the prod or intent of the bill. But I missed it in the explanation of the bill. So what what is the the benefit of this legislation versus a direct arrangement between a commercial entity that owns the property and the borrower. What I fail to understand is why the state is involved in this arrangement from the get go. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you for that question, Mr. President. I I will totally admit that the committee it took us a long time to understand this program, and we went over and over and over again with with testimony in order to understand it, having witnesses in twice, in some cases, to say, can you say that again? And so it is a little complicated to understand, but the reason that these loans become possible is because the municipality places a lien on the property as collateral for the property, and that lien stays with the property. So if property owner sells the property, say it's a warehouse that had a new heating system installed in it through a C PACE loan that has shown that this new heating system will reduce the energy cost for the building, and that owner of the building decides to sell the building, they can sell the building, but the lien will stay on the property until the full C PACE loan is repaid. And so it makes the it gives the ability to have a lower interest rate and to have a longer term loan that is secured by the lien on the property. And the reason the state has to be involved is because we have to give permission to municipalities to place liens on property for this purpose. And again, as I said, this this program is is, law in more than 30 states. So there are a lot of other states, including our neighbor to the East New Hampshire has a C PACE property program and many, many other states do. So this is something that states do as a way to provide different types of capital and financing for business owners to make improvements to their properties.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you, Mr. President. And I appreciate the feedback from the reporter. So I'm going to try to boil it down what I think I heard is I understand that the lean stays on the property essentially on the project, the energy efficiency project, which fully understand. But that the concept of this program results in a lower essentially lower terms, lower rate terms on the overall project. If that sums it up in nutshell, Mr. President, I I would would appreciate Yes.

[Senator Randy Brock]: I think acknowledge.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Yes. I think that that you're correct. It also allows for the the first mortgager to give permission to to get back in line to get further placed further back in line for loan repayments. So without the ability of the CPAES program to require, that a lender approve it, it there wouldn't be this sort of reordering of of lenders in in the line of who gets paid first, second, and third.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you, mister president. I thank the reporter.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca (Becca) White]: Thank you, mister president. I rise in full support of this bill, and I'm deeply appreciative of Senate Natural Resources taking the time on this complex, unique, but important financial tool for businesses. I wanted to highlight that residential PACE has existed in our state for quite a long time. And in Hartford in particular, we went through the process of creating a residential PACE district, think is the right word. And we saw lower than desired interest in the program, largely because it is a specialized tool that unless you're doing a long range program or project, you might not invest the time and effort to go through this type of complex relationship. I wanted to highlight that when you reduce, like the main goal of this is oftentimes energy projects like switching to heat pumps or weatherizing your business or home, that costs significant money upfront, but you save substantial amounts over the lifetime of the project. That means you're reducing your electric bill, reducing your water bill and a business and why businesses in our area are so excited for this program and wanna see this bill pass, is that means they have reduced day to day costs that then they can reinvest into other parts of their business, like raising the wages of their employees, investing in growth. All of that can't happen when you have lots of fixed costs that continue to rise. So I see this project or this this bill is bringing us in line with our neighbors in New Hampshire, frankly, who are really thrilled about it. And when we're competing against Lebanon and West Lebanon for business space and warehouse space, where they're gonna decide to go on what side of the river can depend on programs like this. So I'm extremely grateful for the committee, and I hope that the senate votes in favor of

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: it as as I will.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia (Ginny) Lyons]: Thank you, mister president. I just sharing. Historically, this was first developed, years and years ago, and the PACE program, I think, began in California. And when we brought it into the commit our committee, in natural resources and energy, the toughest part of this was the financing piece and bringing investors in to support the program. It's called a district. And at that time, residents across different municipalities were trying to come together to do this, and we've seen how very difficult it is for residential properties. Having said that, as we're now we're moving forward with an individual property, it's no longer it's a district, but it's still now it's an individual property. Now perhaps we can think about how to better incorporate some of the housing development that we're looking at into a district in a new way. So this is something that the Senate Health Senate Natural Resources and Energy has brought to us. I think it's a good step forward. We do we do need to take care, about the liability issues because that will continue to be a concern regardless of what happens to the program. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Thank you, mister president. I rise in support of this bill to offer a comment and against the advice of, Dick Mazza to offer some appreciation. He never liked it when he raised and said thank you to the committee. But I wanna thank the reporter and the whole committee for taking this bill up. I was the introducer of this bill, and you can see it was very short. The work that you did was truly phenomenal. So I know there's a lot of UBM students that have been following this too. I just wanna frame what I see the value of this is because I think it touches upon a few of the comments that were made here. What this does is align the long term benefits with short term interests. So if you are a commercial developer, if you have in your portfolio commercial properties and you're thinking about doing something like this came up on the campaign trail, I love solar panels. I just don't like them all along Route 7 and farm fields where I'd rather have houses. So what I say is I'd rather have those solar panels over parking lots. And if you wanna make the math work on putting solar panels over parking lots to serve as carports so that we dual use the impermeable surface. You gotta make the numbers work, CPASE is something that other states have used because if you're not planning to keep that property, whatever that is, be it a warehouse, be it the University Mall, which I think many of us are familiar with, If you wanna make those numbers work, the U Mall's going through a transition of ownership to invest in the steel cantilever structures that would have to go up so that you could get plows underneath the solar panels. It's a big amount of money, but it starts to make sense if you don't necessarily have to keep paying it off over the entire life of the project. So C PACE allows that debt for that improvement to carry with the project. So even if you sell the parcel, somebody else owns it, that that debt does not need to be resolved. That transfer of ownership can continue to be paid off as benefit is achieved. So I think it's a financing tool that is applicable for now. Resiliency is a great addition by the committee. So I'm really glad to see this bill move forward, and I I hope it actually helps in making numbers work so that we can get more solar panels over parking lots than over fields. But I'll leave it at that, mister president. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Thank you, mister president. Just some comments about solar attached to buildings. In real estate, when you pull up into a project, of any sort, whether it's a commercial building or a house to be sold and your solar panels on there, you have one question. And the question is, how much do you owe owe on solar? I can think of a residential, which I realized this is commercial, but I pulled in one time and and I said, how's your solar? We're all great. Yeah. It's doing good. And I said, well, what's your payment on your solar? Well, it's $11.38 a month. I said, okay. That's good. Yeah. $11.30. How long? Twenty five years. Okay. Eleven thirty. Okay. Well, what was your soul what was your bill before your solar was there? $200 a month. I said, well, what have you added since you put your oh, nothing. Nothing. She's but I don't have a I don't have an electric bill. I said, well, you do. It's $11.38 a month. Well, that no. That's the that Russ, you don't understand. That's for the solar panels. And I'm like, well, no. You you know, listen. You went from $200 a month. Now you're $11.38 a month and it's for twenty five years. So I get very nervous when I hear about the benefits of solar and how well it goes because it it isn't in real estate, it is not a it is not a great thing. It really, really isn't. I get the overall mission of reducing the loads of electricity and things. So I get very nervous when I see bills like this. One of the reason I can support this bill is because of the involvement of the lenders upfront and understanding what the project is and then also the towns as well that they could, they certainly would have a say in, well, this was an equitable situation. But again, I get very, very nervous when I hear the benefits of what solar is when they're attached to buildings because it isn't all unicorns and pixie dust all the time in the business. So thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on natural resources and energy? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. I rise, mainly just, because I'm very enthusiastic about this bill, and I wanna highlight one aspect. We've talked a lot about solar panels just now, but in terms of resiliency in other states, the resiliency aspect has looked like things like changing your landscaping so that it's not so prone to wildfires. In Vermont, resiliency might look like elevating your building. It might look like raising the utilities above the flood level. And I say that, so that you all have it in your minds as potential messengers back out to your communities, should, should communities need, tools or resources, for disaster relief, for, capital to make improvements that this is one that might be useful in your own communities. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. And you have amended the bill as recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You've ordered third reading of s one thirty eight. We have on the calendar for action s one eighty one introduced on 01/06/2026. It was 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 six thirteen 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 one, an act relating to eliminating the requirement for a pre sentence investigation for imposition of a deferred sentence.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Recognize the senator from Windham, senator Hashim, for the report of the committee on judiciary.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Thank you, mister president. So this is day two of starting off the bill presentation by describing it as small technical glitch. The bill can be located on page six thirteen of today's calendar. So the bill is related to deferred sentences and pre sentence investigation reports. A deferred sentence is a type of sentence in which a defendant pleads guilty and is placed on probation. If they successfully complete probation their guilty verdict is struck and their record is expunged. If they do not complete probation then the underlying sentence, can be imposed. It's a sort of high risk high reward type of sentence, but one of the procedural requirements which can only be waived by the prosecutor or through agreement is a pre sentence investigation also known as a PSI. This is a process that's composed on DOC employees, specifically probation and parole, and involves gathering a large amount of information about offended prior to their sentencing. And one concern I've heard both in testimony and in practice is that, in certain situations, this has become an unnecessary redundancy. So s one eighty one proposes to remove the ability for the state to be the only party that can waive a PSI, for non listed offenses. The rationale behind this is that by the time both parties have presented their evidence and closed their arguments, the judge should have should have sufficient information to decide if a deferred sentence is appropriate. If a judge does determine that more information is needed they could still order a PSI under rule 32 of the Vermont rules of criminal procedure. And so while this is a very small change we did hear testimony that it is one step that could that could help alleviate backlogs and resolve cases a bit more efficiently. We heard from legislative counsel, the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs, the field operations manager from DOC, the defender general's office, and the chief superior judge, Mr. Martine The voting committee was five zero zero, and I asked for the senate support. The

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: question is, shall the bill be amended 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 we have amended the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary. 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. Ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of s one eighty one. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, mister president. If we could, I would move to pass over s two zero six and move directly to the rest of the calendar with the idea of coming back to two zero six a little later in the session.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: We have on the calendar for action s two nineteen 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 six twenty four, and that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. The bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations, which reports that it has considered the bill and recommends that the amendment proposed by the committee on natural resources and energy be amended is set forth in today's calendar starting on page six twenty six, and that when amended, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S two zero nine, an act relating to an energy navigator program report.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I recognize the senator from Addison, senator Hardy, for the report of the committee.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you. I'm back, everybody.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Deja vu.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: S two nineteen is a bill about energy navigators. And I just wanna start by talking I think probably most of us know what energy navigators are, but they are people who come into homes invited invited by the way. Yeah. And and help homeowners, generally homeowners, but also businesses find ways to reduce their energy costs. This sounds a little like deja vu for sure, mister president. But it is a way to say, oh, maybe you could replace your windows, and this would help you lower your heating costs or that that hot water heater is really really old if you buy a new one you could reduce your hot water costs and they also help connect people to programs that are state programs, local programs, federal programs to help finance that. So they might actually help a business learn about C PACE if we pass those through these bills. And these are already existing though, by the way. So there are energy navigators already embedded in a lot of the work that already happens in the state and in local and nonprofit organizations. So the Efficiency Vermont has energy navigators. A couple of them work in person, in face to face, but a lot of it is remote energy navigators. Our, community action agencies like CVOEO and NeighborWorks, They have energy navigators that are really focused on helping lower income Vermonters access programs. And then there are some of our utilities have energy navigators. So this is a concept that already exists and has existed for many years. And there are other kinds of navigators. There are healthcare navigators. There are probably other kinds of navigators. But this is not a new concept. But recently there have been a few things that have sort of led to wanting to look more closely at energy navigator programs and figuring out how we could improve them. One is that there was a report issued by the Public Utility Commission last December 1, and this was looking at all types of energy programs for lower income Vermonters and how we could improve those. This was sort of in wake of the whole debate about, I actually don't even want to say it on the floor, it feels like saying Macbeth if you're on the in a play, but in the program that we passed a couple years ago and that didn't move forward with. But there were a lot of reports that came out of it about how to improve energy lower energy costs for Vermonters and improve energy efficiency. So they recommended in this report, the PUC recommended that we look at energy navigators and increase the number of energy navigators that are available to Vermonters so that they know about the programs that exist and know how to reduce their energy costs. And that is also leading to an already in progress project through the Public Service Department to look more broadly at energy programs. There are over 20 programs for lower income Vermonters and they want to look at how can we maybe make those programs work better. So they're already doing a report and what this bill asked them to do is to look at energy navigators and create a program design for how to improve in person hands on energy navigators. And there are a couple programs and one that I will mention because it is in my district is the Action Climate Center of Addison County. And they have a hands on in person energy navigator program that is run by volunteers. And so it's very low cost. And they have been really successful in getting people to sign up and getting them to participate in lowering their energy costs and they've been particularly good at helping moderate income for machers. And many other towns have actually asked the Addison County group, how can we get what you have? So I know Shelburne has asked if they can, Brandon has asked, Huntington and Rochester, so the sort of surrounding areas are all really interested in getting in on this really great program. And so this bill is asking for a program design or a report back from the Public Service Department, the Department of Public Service, to design a to consult to do a third party consultant to design a Vermont community based energy navigator and coaching program in collaboration with the Climate Energy Action Center of Addison County and other existing community based navigator programs in Vermont that will provide in person and remote energy coaching services to residential customers and communities statewide. So how can we bring this statewide? Recently several of our neighbors including Massachusetts and Connecticut have done this. They have in person hands on energy navigator programs that are statewide programs. And this is really trying to figure out how to do that as well. And that would, it would be basically a second step two of the report that they are already doing that they've just now hired a consultant to start to do and the Public Service Department by the way stepped up and said, hey, we want to help do this. They volunteered to help do this. So the department's consultants shall build on findings from the department's comprehensive process and performance evaluation of the more than 100 publicly funded. I said 20. I meant 100 publicly funded energy programs focused on affordability, including electric and thermal energy, weatherization for customers with low income, and beneficial electrification initiatives to inform the design of a Vermont community based home energy navigator and coaching program. The department shall consult with energy efficiency Vermont, the Vermont State Energy Office, the Vermont Climate Action Office, the Vermont Community Action Agency, the Vermont Energy and Climate Action Network, Vermont Electric Utilities, Community Based Home Energy Navigator and Coaching Programs, and other states including Connecticut and Massachusetts that have experience with community based energy programs. And this is specifically focused on residential consumers, but there's no prohibition on working with private business owners. And then there's a description of the program designed guidance to residential commuters. This is on top of page six twenty five for those of you who are following along. Six twenty four was what I just read section one about the report. This is what the program shall include on 06/25 guidance to residential consumers, advise residential consumers on accessing available grants and rebates and financing like maybe C PACE assist residential consumers in prioritizing identified energy savings opportunities, what is the best bang for your buck, help residential consumers connect to local contractors. This has been a really big thing is helping people want to do something in their home, they don't know who to get to do the work. So one of the things energy navigators can do is recommend who would be good people to do the work and advise them in person and over time. So checking back with them as they're doing their projects and how to fund these. There'll be an amendment from the appropriations committee on the funding issue and then what are the available public and private partnerships that currently exist. They would report back with this design by 03/01/2027 to the all of the relevant committees and about how to either design a program or have a pilot program. There is on the section two is the appropriation section. Again, you'll see an amendment from your appropriations committee and the effective date is 07/01/2026 for this program design of energy navigators. We heard from the, of course, our legislative council attorney, we heard from the Addison County Climate Action folks, including a former representative, Meyer, and, we heard from the energy and climate, program director for Vermont Natural Resources Council. We heard from the, Public Service Department, and their willingness to add this on to the work that they're already doing, and I would even say they we're excited about it. So, I the committee was, five zero zero vote, Mr. President, and we ask for the Senate's support. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Recognize the senator from Washington District, Senator Watson for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. Senate appropriations did take a look at this and had a few instances of amendment, that all pertain to the, money related to this bill. You can see on page, six twenty five, one of the couple of the things that the program is supposed to do is provide ongoing state funding, to support the operations of this kind of program, and then, seven is, use available, grant funds and, private partnerships. And understanding the intent of that language, modified that, to because the it as a program, it itself will not be providing ongoing state funding, so it's, to provide recommendations, on, on state funding, and then, instead of using available grant funds, to support the implementation, it would recommend, any grant funds, to implement the program. And then, in addition, it does, include some typical, contingency funding language, that so it sounds like because the Department of Public Service is engaged in a similar report that they are moving forward with, that the the duty to hire a consultant to, to to do this aspect, is contingent on an appropriation that we would determine as a part of the budget process, and and likewise, any grant funding, to participants, who are consulted along the way would also be contingent on the appropriation of funds for that purpose. So that those are the the three instances of amendment, that the Senate Appropriations Committee put forward, and, the voting committee on that was seven zero zero. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The question is, shall the recommendation of amendment of the committee natural resources and energy be amended as proposed by the committee on appropriations? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it, and you have amended the recommendation of amendment as proposed by the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy. The next question is shall the Senate amend the bill as recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy 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? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you, mister president. If I may interrogate the natural resources reporter.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you, mister president. Again, good good good project. Good good good initiative. But my question is, I thought that there was statewide energy efficiency organization of Efficiency Vermont, but I understand from the testimony that there's actually 100 different organizations which may be contributing to Vermont's energy efficiency. My question to the reporter is, is one of the goals of this effort that we're contemplating to make those 100 programs to combine them into something which is a bit more of a management efficiency and focus for the state. Mister president?

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you for that question, mister president. First of all, I just want to be clear. They're not a 100 different agencies. There are a 100 different programs. So some of the, some of those programs are embedded in the Department of Public Service, the PUC, Efficiency Vermont, Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Children's and Families, etcetera. So there's there's a lot of different programs and yes, I think the answer is the work that they're doing on a larger study is to figure out how how they could be more efficient and effective. Ironically, how can they be more efficient with the programs about energy efficiency and how can they help Vermonters access those programs and utilize those programs most effectively. So I do think that's their larger the larger project that they're already undergoing at the Public Service Department. This bill doesn't deal with the bigger picture of that. This bill is specific to the energy navigator programs. And as I mentioned, there are a number of energy navigator programs. So what this bill is trying to do is say, how can we have one statewide program that's community based so that people have people in their own community that they can turn to for energy navigator assistance. But that is, you know, a consistent and cohesive energy navigator program statewide.

[Senator Scott Beck]: So thank you, mister president, and I thank the reporter. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Question 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've ordered third reading of s two nineteen. We have on the calendar for action S two thirty nine introduced on 01/13/2026. It was referred to the Committee on government operations, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page six twenty seven 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 thirty nine, an act relating to the child abuse and neglect reporting working group.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Recognize the senate. Did

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: you could you say what committee it was

[Senator Rebecca (Becca) White]: referred to and what committee is reporting out?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: That would be a point of inquiry.

[Senator Rebecca (Becca) White]: Point of inquiry.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Is, referred to the committee on health and welfare. I recognize the senator from Chittenden, senator Gulick, for the report of the committee on health and welfare.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: Mister president, Agatha Christie once said, one of the luckiest things that can happen to you in life is to have a happy childhood. As we know, that's not always the case for children in Vermont, and there are some children who suffer from neglect and abuse. In those tragic cases, we have laws in place to help protect those children and remove them from a dangerous environment if deemed necessary. The contents of this bill were recommended by the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services who reached out to my Chittenden central colleague, senator Vyhovsky, who is a social worker with deep and relevant experience and knowledge. This strike all amendment has come about because there are real concerns with laws specifically around mandatory reporting that have not been updated since the 1990s. Currently, mandatory reporting laws lack clarity. They're outdated, as I just said, and we took testimony from the lead sponsor of the bill that sometimes mandatory reporters lack a clear understanding of what the reporting rules really mean. Training requirements for mandatory reporting need to be updated so that children are not harmed and also not removed from their families when they shouldn't be. This bill acknowledges that changes to mandatory reporting, which are found in chapter 49 of title 33, must be done carefully and thoughtfully. So instead of recommending changes in this bill, this bill would create a working group. You will see as you said, Mr. President, on page six twenty nine, if you'd like to follow along with the calendar, that we did make a few changes to the bills introduced. And again, I just wanna reiterate that this is forming a study group, a working group. The Section one is the formation of the working group. We added the word mandatory, and we added two members of the Child Development Division, which, resides in DCF, the Department of Children and Families. And we added a list of stakeholders that the group should consult with. And we set the due date for the report, as 01/15/2027. And lastly, we added language to really guide the the work of this group toward minimum standards, best practices, alignment between systems and the laws and the rules and the policies that set a course of action in place to recognize, and report child abuse and also to understand what is not child abuse. For example, poverty is not abuse and mandatory reporters need to be able to discern the difference between the two. Section two, we did not change and, the effective date for this bill is on passage. We heard from legislative counsel, we heard from Senator Vyhovsky, the sponsor of the bill, and Lindsay Baron of the Department of Children and Families Family Service Division. Your Senate Health and Welfare Committee voted five zero zero in favor of this bill, and we ask that the body concur. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the Committee on Health and Welfare? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the reporter of the bill?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The reporter's interrogated.

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: Thank you very much, and I appreciate this bill very much. Just recently, I heard from a constituent who works for the school districts, and I would like to ask if the committee took testimony from school personnel.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: We did not take testimony from school personnel Mister president.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Okay. Thank the report. Oh.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: May might I just add a a little point of clarification? The presenter of the bill and the sponsor of the bill who is a social worker, has worked in schools. So we did have, that background to sort of add of add a tenor to the work that is being done. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: I think the report of the bill I'll consult with, folks who are, the reporter of the bill and the sponsor of the bill and, possibly have an amendment to suggest that a representative of a school be part of the working group.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator Perchlik.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: Thank you, mister president. We understand that there are gonna be significant number of folks in the state with interest in participating and offering, information as the working group, goes ahead. The the key point, obviously, for school participants would be mandatory reporting, which is a piece of a really important piece of this. And there are other mandatory reporters out there who are not included in the initial list for the working group, but that doesn't mean that their voices will not be heard during the process. So we we did talk about this, and we also have, the Vermont Child Youth and Family Advocate who works statewide and hears from folks regularly about the child abuse, network and child abuse issues, that we have currently, whether it's schools, churches, homes, what whatever it is, and all of those folks will be heard. And I think the advocate will be helpful in identifying additional, voices. Thank you, mister president.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S two ninety one, an act relating to travel disclosures for legislators and certain executive officers.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I recognize the senator from Chittenden, senator people's super. Please report.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Thank you, mister president. As I think comes as no surprise, there is a record low trust in government. And it will also probably come as no surprise given how long I have fought for increased transparency and ethics and accountability that I put forward this bill to do just that, to take one step forward in increasing transparency. This bill is based on language that exists in other states requiring similar types of disclosures. I want to be very clear this bill prohibits nothing. What it does require is that elected officials and certain executive officers, namely secretaries, commissioners, deputy secretaries, and deputy commissioners report publicly, when an entity other than the state of Vermont or the United States government has paid for them to travel because of their role. This might be an instance when a nonprofit or another government has paid for that person to travel simply because of their role as an elected official or that small list of executive officers. It is my view that for trust and transparency that that type of travel should be reported and available for the public to know who is paying for the people to make those travel plans. It will not require that anyone report their personal vacations or their travel to visit family or friends, only instances where they are going simply because of their role as an elected official or, a secretary commissioner, deputy secretary, or deputy, commissioner. The reporting is outlined in the bill. One of the changes your government operations committee made was to allow the the executive officers to use their already existing reporting tools, simply making those public. If this requires that elected officials would make those reports to the ethics commission, but for the executive officers, we heard that under one of their bulletins, they're already reporting this. It's simply not publicly available, so it does allow them to not be duplicative and make them file two reports to use their existing system. The other addition to the bill is actually some small tweaks and clarifications to language around the Ethics Commission, and these tweaks and changes came directly from the Ethics Commission. They thought it would make their work easier and their task clearer to the public, and that is what the bill does. It is based, as I said, on language that already exists, I believe, in Massachusetts and Connecticut and other states, but those are the two states we sort of based the language on, and in my view is this is one step forward in building transparency and trust in state government. Your vote in the and I think I left my witness list in committee, so I apologize for that, but your vote in committee was five zero zero and I will happily bring the witness list and share it with you all on third reading.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on government operations? Are you ready for that question? Senator from Chittenden, Southeast.

[Senator Rebecca (Becca) White]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the reporter of

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Reporter will be interrogated.

[Senator Rebecca (Becca) White]: Mister president, both the senator from Chittenden Central and I sit on the ethics panel for the Senate, where we've had many meaningful discussions about when someone in the legislature is operating within their legislative duties and functions, and when they are considered not operating within their legislative duties and functions. So I would imagine that the reporter of the bill has some knowledge of what I might be asking when I ask if there's the possibility that

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: a

[Senator Rebecca (Becca) White]: travel disclosure could be filed with the ethics commission, but a complaint comes to the Senate ethics panel.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I think that that would absolutely happen, that if there was a complaint just as it does now, it would come to the ethics panel. It might also go to the ethics commission but as we know we haven't really funded them to be able to do the work that we've tasked them to do so we end up doing a lot of that in the ethics panel.

[Senator Rebecca (Becca) White]: Mister President, I thank my colleague, and, I may want to discuss this further with the committee for clarification by third reading.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, senator. Question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on government operations? Are you ready for that question? Senator from Russ.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Mister president, if I may interrogate the reporter or

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: the bill? Reporter will be interrogated.

[Senator Scott Beck]: So, again, this kinda move through this pretty quick. This is a new topic. I'm just curious. So I understand that these reports get given to the state ethics commission. I'm looking for confirmation of that

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

[Senator Scott Beck]: From the reporter. Thank you, mister president. Who retains these reports? Where are they posted? If I could, inquire, Mr. President.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: The ethics commission would retain them and post them and make them available for public viewing.

[Senator Scott Beck]: All good. Thank you, Mr. President. And then it was kind of quickly passed through, and I couldn't quite find it in the language of the bill. On the sponsorship, I heard foreign governments, I think I heard organizations of one type or another, if if the reporter could at least articulate what's what's being reported obviously now we know it's in whom but that would be helpful thank you Mr. President.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yes, so the exemptions to filing a report are if the state government or US government were to pay for the travel, so if the Vermont State Senate said we want you to go do this and we paid for it you do not have to make a report, though you can. We did make a change in the bill as it was originally drafted it actually prohibited you making a report in those instances, but we did change that so you're able to but do not have to. The things that need to be reported are what the travel was for, who paid for it, what was paid, and what was paid for unless it's of a de minimis value And we had de minimis value, meaning a value of $50 or less per source per occasion or a value. An individual item received from any one source shall not exceed $150 in a calendar year, so that would be the aggregate de minimis amount. And this was really meant to capture, you know, maybe I have gone to an event and I'm speaking and I'm running late to get somewhere and a taxi is ordered. We don't feel like that necessarily needed to be reported so we did add the de minimis exemption but really what is being reported if it's not being paid for like I said by the state or US government is where you went, what why you were there, and what was paid for, and by whom.

[Senator Scott Beck]: K. Very good. Thank you, mister president. And that all seems reasonable. So in the event that a foreign government pays for travel, that, this would be a reportable, occasion?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yes.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you. And then also, in addition to foreign governments, any organization, whether it's US based or foreign based, that provides under the under the deep under the kind of boundaries that the reporter provided, non governmental organizations, nonprofit or otherwise, would also be reported with upon the passage of this bill. Would that be correct Mr. President?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yes if it is not the state of Vermont or the U. S. Government paying for the travel it would be reportable again it is not prohibited it is simply reportable and available to the public.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Very good. Thank you, mister president. I thank the reporter.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. May inquire of the reporter, please?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: You may. The senator will be interrogated.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. At the top of 06:30, and I I think I know the answer to this question but I just want to make sure because of what you've just said a couple times it's if it's paid for by the state or the federal government or the member themselves. That is correct. Okay so if someone decides they want to go on a trip to a foreign place to Europe or whatever and they pay for it themselves and then they get there and say I'm the senator from Vermont and blah blah blah that's not reportable if they've paid for it themselves. They don't have to report. They could if they wanted to.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: That is correct.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Okay. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate you?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Reporter will be interrogated.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Mister president, I don't know that many of us get to go on things done by foreign governments. I've never heard of anything from the US government that comes through here. But many of us attend conferences sponsored by the National Conference of State Legislators, insurance legislators, the Conference of State Government,

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

[Senator Ann Cummings]: they generally offer sponsorships, sponsoring, somewhere around 2,500 to cover travel. Every time somebody in this body does that, we are going to have to make report to the state ethics commission. Is that what that bill would require?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yes, that is the intent of

[Senator Ann Cummings]: the bill. Have that could be tens to hundreds of reports a year. Has anybody looked at the workload? And if that how would you report? I mean, is there a form? How where would I find the the form? Can I fill it out online and put forward, or am I gonna have to address something? How would this work?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: The State Ethics Commission is tasked in the bill to design the form and ensure that people have access to the form.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: And has the state access State Ethics Commission, Mr. President, confirmed that they can handle the workload of looking at and approve do they have to approve the form? The form does not need to

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: be approved. It needs to be filed, and I worked with the State Ethics Commission to develop the language of this bill if they had concerns I imagine they would have shared them.

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: Okay

[Senator Ann Cummings]: and this would be public record?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yes.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Thank you Mr. President.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. Senator From Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca (Becca) White]: Mr. President I just rise in support of this bill as someone who has gotten the privilege and honor of traveling to Taiwan, Denmark, and, Abu Dhabi recently, all through programs associated with supporting different issues that I care about as a senator. At each one of those travel trips, I got a form afterwards saying, what are the requirements of your state for travel travel disclosure? And I said none, because we don't currently have any requirement. But I think it's important that our constituents know if we're having a paid trip by a foreign government. I think that's important. And for me, I publicly share often when I do those trips so that my constituents know, but if I didn't, and then I took a vote on, let's say the Taiwanese friendship resolution, and I gave a speech, that would be you'd wanna connect the dots. Where did I get and develop an interest in Taiwanese government? Was it just because I naturally care about that country or was it because I've created friendships and relationships with folks who are on the island? So I do think this is an important bill, although would require disclosure on our parts, it would take, you know, five, ten minutes each time I get to travel, through a paid program. And and I if, would just offer as the NCSL coordinator, for the Vermont Senate chamber, I'm very willing to work with folks to, if, when this bill becomes implemented to work with our partners at different conferences so we can get clear information. They already do this for, actually, the majority of other states that they offer these kinds of scholarships to. So thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on government operations? Are you ready for that 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 amended the bill as recommended by the committee on government operations. Question now is shall the bill be read the third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those fit in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying no. The ayes have it. And you have ordered third reading of s two ninety one. We will move back to s two zero six at this point, which we passed over earlier. And it was referred, to the Committee on Health and Welfare, which reports it as considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as set forth in today's calendar, and that when so amended, the bill ought to pass.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Affecting revenues of the state.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The bill was referred to the committee on finance, which reports that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on finance.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Affecting the appropriations of the state, the bill was then referred

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: to the committee on appropriations, which reports that it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill ought to pass. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S two zero six, an act relating to licensure of early childhood educators by the office of professional regulation.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I'd like to recognize the senator from Chittenden Central for the report of the committee on health and welfare.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: Thank you, mister president. S two zero six is a natural agent to licensure of early childhood educators by the office of Professional Regulation. We all have experience, being a child. We all have childhoods. And we we want we are, often feel as though because of our lived experience, because of our personal observations and anecdotes that we have a certain level of expertise in the area of early childhood education. And I also think we are all often conflicted between wanting to use those personal experiences to draft and create policy, but also being guided by data and evidence and research. So with that, I want to really send some praise to the colleagues, our colleagues and folks who work in and around our state government and provide us with such incredible data, research, and evidence to make our decisions. And the early childhood education sunrise review assessment, from the office of professional regulation is just an incredible document. I've spent quite a bit of time with it now. It looks really daunting it's not that bad half of it is frankly citation it's so well cited that there are just a lot of footnotes in here So anyone who feels that they want to increase their knowledge of early education, early childhood education, this is a fabulous document. I highly recommend it. So I'm gonna start with a little bit of background and history, and then I'll get to the bill a little bit later. You may know that OPR, the Office of Professional Regulation, only regulates professions when there is a risk of harm. And when they do so, they do so at the most minimally invasive way that they can. That could be registration, it could be certification, or it could be licensure. In early childhood education, harm can happen. That is why this has come to the office of professional regulation. In May 2024, seeing some deficiencies in some areas for growth in our early childhood landscape, the Vermont Association of for the education of young children submitted to the Vermont office of professional regulation, OPR, an application for preliminary for preliminary sunrise review assessment, recognizing early childhood education as a licensed profession in Vermont. The application triggered, an OPR regulatory review to assess whether Vermont should regulate early childhood education as a stand alone profession. OPR concluded that early childhood education in nonpublic settings so I wanna be clear that everything we're discussing today is the nonpublic setting. So not the, pre k that we see in public schools that is overseen by the agency of education. This is something else. So so they looked at non public settings, should they be a regulated profession in Vermont? A uniform regulatory system of early childhood educators in a non public setting would ensure public protections by one, improving the quality of care, two, reducing harms to children. And three, establishing a streamlined preparation pathway for early educators. So those are the three main things that we're going to be looking at. But you might be asking, well, what problem are we trying to solve? We always like to look at that question when we talk about policy. So let's do a little bit of table setting if you could humor me a little bit. On page 27 of the Sunrise Review, which I know you don't all have a copy of, but there's a great section that talks about the importance of early education and all that's going on in our brains when we are one year old or two or three or four. And I can tell you as someone who was put in a French kindergarten at the age of five, I was fluent in two months. So if that doesn't show you what's happening in the child's brain, I don't know what does because learning a language at 60 is a whole different ballgame. So anyway, on that in that section, there's a lot of great reporting on the importance of early childhood education to brain development, to setting the neural pathways for success. And if I may, mister president, I'd love to read something from

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Without objection.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: Thank you. So I'm just gonna read you a a on page, pages twenty nine and thirty, something that I think is important, because we wanna, again, be grounded in evidence. So the long term positive impacts of children participating in high quality early education include better physical health, increased higher education, higher earnings, and lower involvement in crime. Two separate research projects that began in the 1970s compared the impacts of early care and education between two similarly situated groups of children. One group having access to comprehensive developmental resources and the other having access to lower quality early care. In both studies, data was collected about participants, yearly until the age of eight and included analysis of cognitive and socioeconomic skills. I'm sorry. So socio emotional social emotional skills, not economic. Participants continue to provide data at age 12, age 15, 21, 30, and 35 years of age. So it's really a longitudinal study. The data gathered in these studies demonstrated that children who received access to high quality developmental resources, including early learning, had significantly better health, education, incomes, and life outcomes than those without care or with lower quality care. This was evident even when that child grew to be a 35 year old adult. Another research project showed that children from low income populations who before the age of five received two years or more of high quality early childhood education had higher salaries in their mid twenties and were more likely to graduate from college. So again, just highlighting the importance of this this time of our lives. And in terms of finances, $1 invested in early education, early education, educate early childhood education yields a savings of anywhere from 4 to $16, or I should say, a return of 4 to $16. The investments that we've already made in Vermont, through act 166, act 58, act 45, and act 76 have been incredibly important. First of all, they laid bare the issues that we have in Vermont, and they also gave us tools to begin the work of improvement. This is one of those tools. So the problem or problems that we're trying to solve with this bill, are reducing harm that could have lasting effects and improve the lack of and the individual accountability that currently exists in Vermont. Currently, CDD investigates claims if there's a complaint. They would investigate the claim and they would go through a process, But the process really focuses on the facility and the individual. So currently, if there's an issue with an individual in the childcare setting, they can move on. And there's nothing to let the parent of a child know that there's been an issue with that individual. A person who caused harm can move, and this bill would allow OPR to investigate individuals and if need be suspend a license. Everyone working currently in early childhood education does have to follow a certain amount of requirements, but they don't have the benefit of licensure. And they don't have a the benefit of a robust organized continuum of learning and improvement. You may remember this bill from last year. I know a lot of us were scratching our heads when we saw this come up because we remembered voting on it last year. We did. It was part of a larger OPR bill. That OPR bill did pass successfully out of the senate. It went to the house. And what happened was they ran out of time to take, robust testimony on the this section of the OPR bill, so it ended up getting taken out. So it that is why it may seem familiar. So let's go through the committee reports, which you can find on I wanna make sure I get my page right. 06:15 I hear my chair whispering. Thank you. 06:15 of the, calendar.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: And let's see.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: So just to recap before I go into the bones of the bill, this committee report creates a new license requirement for early childhood educators working in a program regulated by CDD that is not located in a public school, which is different from the existing license required for the operation of a childcare program. It establishes a board of early childhood educators to oversee the profession in collaboration with the Office of Professional Regulation. And the committee report proposes eligibility requirements and a fee structure for several license types and creates two opportunities for variances from the eligibility requirements, which I know is an important piece for many of you. It further creates two new positions to establish the licensure program and makes corresponding appropriations. So section one, if you're following along, is set sets us in three VSA chapter one twenty two, and that is the OPR, statute, and it is effective it will be effective on the 07/01/2026. It adds early childhood educators to the list of professions regulated by OPR. Section two, which we're now in 16 b s a, which is the professions and occupation statute, chapter 111, this will be effective on 07/01/2026. This establishes a new chapter specific to the regulation of early childhood educators in, yeah, in title 26. You will see that chapter sixty two eleven is the creation of the board. 6,212 are the board procedures. Chapter six thousand two and thirteen are the powers and the duties of the board. And then we move to, section three, which will amend 26 BSA Chapter 111. And you'll see that the date for this is further out. This is 07/01/2028. It's actually gonna amend that earlier section. And this section adds to previously created licensure, to the previously created licensure chapter that we just talked about, and it adds, in chapter sixty two zero one, it adds definitions. And I'll go through these with you because I know a lot of folks are curious about this. It adds numerous definitions, including the most significantly, ECE one, So early childhood educator one. This is an individual practicing as an assisted educator under the supervision of an ECE two, an ECE three, or a teacher licensed by the AOE, so an early childhood educator in a public setting, with an endorsement in early childhood education, early childhood special education, or elementary education. The next category or level is ECE two. This is an individual practicing as a lead or a primary educator who can supervise an ECE one and can also receive guidance from an ECE three. An ECE three early childhood educator three, this is an individual practicing as a lead or primary educator who can supervise an ECE one and also provide guidance to an ECE two. FCCP is the family child, childcare provider. So this is, someone who takes care of children in the home environment, and, those childhood family providers are able to take care of, they could be taking care of six kids only from two families. So it's a two family limit on the family child care provider, but not two children, two families. Individual this is an individual providing developmentally appropriate care, education, protection, and supervision to children from birth through age eight, and who is authorized by CDD to operate a family child care home. So those are the definitions that we're putting in place in 26 b s a. The next chapter, sixty two zero two, these are the prohibitions, and I'm gonna I'm gonna read these as well. So individuals cannot hold themselves out as an early childhood educator unless they are licensed or if they're exempt from the chapter. Individuals cannot use in connection with the individual's name any letters, words, or insignia indicating that they are an early childhood educator educator unless they are licensed or exempt from the chapter. And in '60 chapter sixty two zero three, we've got exemptions. So this chapter does not apply to a teacher who's licensed by the AOE with an endorsement in early childhood education, early childhood special education, or early elementary education. This chapter does not apply to individuals providing after school care at a CDD regulated program or any child care program exempt from CDD regulation. This chapter does not change the universal pre k requirements and those are the ones that you find in schools. This chapter does not limit or restrict the right of a practitioner a practitioner or another profession from carrying on in the usual manner any functions incidental to the profession. So I don't know. I I for some reason, the scenario that came to mind last night is if you're a dog walker and you happen to bring a couple kids along on a walk with you, this chapter does not, interfere with that at all. I don't know why that example came to mind. Chapter sixty two twenty one, eligibility and qualifications, those are set forward here. I'm happy to go through those quickly. The applicants, must be at least 18 years of old 18 years of age. They have to have a high school diploma or a GED and completed, required early education field experience. Applicants must meet the following educational requirements by type. So ECE one, they will be required to have a certificate from an approved credential program in early childhood education requiring a minimum of a hundred and twenty hours of training and instruction. And that approved credential program will be set in rule. So it may not be spelled out here, but in rule, that will be, worked out. ECE two, that is an associate's degree in early childhood education or related field requiring a minimum of 60 college credits or in any unrelated field at a minimum of 21 college credits in the core early childhood education competency areas. ECE three, we're looking at a bachelor's degree in early childhood education or a related field requiring a minimum of a 120 college credits or in any unrelated field and a minimum of 21 college credits in the core early childhood education competency areas. And then the family childcare provider, qualified for licensure if authorized to operate a family childcare home by CDD, and, the family childcare home is in good standing. And these applications will no longer be accepted after 01/01/2029. We're really trying to get everyone to the same level of excellence, and we're really trying to provide uniform uniformity in terms of the quality of care across the state. Approved educational program may offer college credits based on individuals assessed competency required through experience, and the applicants must pass, an exam if required by the board. So chapter six two two two six two two two is the license renewal section, and you will see that licenses renewed every two years upon application and payment of fee. So every two years, the licenses will be required to be renewed, and there will be a payment of the fee. The fees will be really important because they will obviously help pay for the program and drive the program forward. Failure to comply, will result in suspension and a lapse license. Lapsed licenses are reinstated family childcare provider shall not be renewed after lapsing two or more years. The board may adopt rules to ensure that the applicant whose license lapses for more than five years is professionally qualified before reinstatement may occur. So that again is something that will be fleshed out in rules, not in in the current, bill. And applicants for renewal must complete continued, education if required. Chapter sixty two twenty three are the fees. Those will be taken up a little bit later by my colleague in the Senate Finance. And chapter sixty two twenty four, this is other and

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: we

[Senator Terry Williams]: that's

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: And

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: conduct resulting in being placed on the child protection registry, and contact conduct that does not conform to the NAEYC professional standards and competencies. Chapter sixty two twenty five, these are the variances. Again, I think this is an important section for folks. In section, the board is authorized to issue a transitional ECE two or ECE three license to a teacher or a program director who does not meet licensure requirements for up to eight years while the individual works toward the license licensure requirements. So we're talking about 2036. It authorizes the board to issue a variance for an ECE two for up to eight years if the individual has completed 21 college credits in core early childhood education competencies or has prior experiential learning deemed equivalent to 21 college credits in core early childhood education competency. Chapter sixty two twenty six, this is the disclosure, by licenses, so requires licensed early childhood educators to post and provide information to families on the different types of licenses, the descriptions, I'll well, I'll read those for you. So all OPR license types, a description of OPR's authority over licensees and c CDC regulated programs and how to make complaints, a description of AOE's authority over teachers providing pre k services under 16 b s a eight, chapter eight twenty nine. That is the education statutes, 16 b s a, and a description of c d d c d c c d's c d's, authority over regulated programs. So, obviously, part of this bill is also making sure that parents are educated, families are educated, and they know what they what kind of care their children will be receiving. Section four, this is a repeal, section. It'll take effect on 07/01/2028, and it repeals the variances that we talked about in '26 BSA chapter sixty two twenty five on 07/01/2036. Section five is a report. This is early childhood licensure effective on 07/01/2026, and it requires OPR to submit a report to the general assembly by 11/01/2031 pertaining to the implementation of the licensure program including so this report is important because, any questions that we may have today or some issues that we might have will be the hope is flushed out and really honed, in that report that will be coming out in 2031. So what's gonna be in that report pertaining to implementation of a licensure program. We're gonna find out the number of licenses by the different types. We're going to find out the state resources that, that were used to implement the chapter. We're going to find out the number and the nature of any complaints or enforcement actions, the qualification required for each license type, and other issues that OPR might deem appropriate. In section six, you've got the Office of Professional Regulation, the licensure of early childhood educators, and programs related, and regulated by the CDD. You've got your appropriations and positions. This is all effective 07/01/2026. And, I really appreciate OPR worked with us on this section. Initially, there were three permanent positions, and they changed that to two permanent positions that would be arriving in OPR in, FY '27, and that would be a full time classified executive officer for the board of early childhood educators and a full time, staff attorney. And I also appreciate that they, worked with us on the appropriations, and it appropriates 262,000 of general fund money in '20, FY '27 to OPR for the licensure of early childhood educators. And the effective dates, section seven. Sections one, two, five, six, and seven take effect on 07/01/2026, and sections three and four take effect on 07/01/2026. Okay. Let's see. Where are we? So, I just wanna say before I go over the witness list and the vote that it took me a while to get to yes on this bill. I'll be honest with you. I'm someone who really believes that government is at its best when it creates robust institutions that take care of folks, take care of people. And, you know, I wish that all of our education sort of resided in our public institution, public education. That being said, we have a mixed delivery system for early childhood education, and it seems to serve especially families in rural areas quite well. And that includes the the home health, the home care settings. But I did get to yes. I was I was moved by the evidence and the data and the research that was provided and by the many just incredible testimony that we got. So with that, let me see if I can find my long list of witnesses, and I will share that with you. Bear with me while I find that one. I'd like to think I'm really organized, but, uh-huh, and it is in here somehow, somewhere. While I'm looking, I can tell you that the vote in committee was five zero zero. Here we go. Okay. So we heard from Shannon Edmunds Folsom of JPEG Resort, who was just very enthusiastic about this about this bill. We heard from Danielle Harris, the senior director of youth development at the YMCA. We heard from Ally Richards and Emily Tendenbaum with Let's Grow Kids. We heard from Lauren Hibbard, the deputy secretary at the secretary of state's office, and Jen Collin, shout out, who spent a lot of time on this incredible report. She's the director of the Office of Professional Regulation at the Secretary of State's office. We heard from Morgan Crossman and Anna of Building Bright Futures. We heard from Susan Tittenden and Sharon Harrington of the Vermont Association for the Education of Young Children. We heard from Joanna DeGrafenriede, the public policy manager of Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility. The business community is aware of how important this is. We heard from Megan Meskat, the Director of Early Childhood Education of the Southwest Vermont Supervisory Union, Jen Olson, the director of the Cory Hill School, Caitlin Northy, the associate professor of early childhood education at the University of Vermont, Janet McLaughlin, is the deputy commissioner of the Department of Children and Families Andrew Perch Proudton, the Assistant Director of the Educator Quality Division of the Agency of Education Leslie Johnson, an associate academic dean, of the Community College of Vermont. And again, the vote was five zero zero in committee. We ask that the body concur. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, Senator. I'd like to recognize the Senator from Addison District, Senator Hardy, for the report of the Committee on Finance.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, Mr. President. You will find the fee section of this bill at the very bottom of page six twenty of the 100

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: calendar, section 6,023

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: and then the fees themselves on page six sixty 121. Your finance committee are like bloodhounds with bills when we are looking for fees. The first thing we ask when we get a bill from another committee is where are the fees and go through them sniffing for fees. This one was a little easier to find because the fees are laid out in their own private little section. But we also have the Joint Fiscal Office report on the fees. They're pretty straightforward for the initial application for the ECE one, the early childhood educator one, two and three, they're 125, 175 and two twenty five respectively, respectively, respectively, that's the right word. And then the renewal $2.25, $2.50 and $2.75 respectively for family child care providers initial fee of 175 and a biennial renewal fee of $2.50. I know from past experience with OPR fees that the initial fee is usually cheaper because it's helping get somebody into a field, but then once they're established in the field, the renewal fee is a little bit more expensive to be able to maintain their position in the field or move up in their licensure status. These fees, as you know, from all bills that we get from the Office of Professional Regulation and frankly from other places, fees are meant to cover the cost of the program and in this case cover the cost of OPR regulating early childhood educators. So starting, they would start to collect the fees in FY '28. They would not be the revenue would not be available till FY '29, so there is an appropriation, which your Appropriations Committee will talk about. But then starting in FY '29, the fee revenue would be available. It would generate approximately $800,000 in fiscal year twenty twenty nine based on the estimates of OPR and then approximately $1,200,000 biannually after that. It would be, deposited in the OPR regulatory fee fund, and then, that would be remain, to, regulate the profession. So, the the total fees, estimated, over the years are about 800,000. And then in, FY thirty one and every odd year after that, because they're two year biennial renewals would be about $1,200,000. So your committee on finance took a look at these fees and heard from the office of, professional regulation and the joint fiscal office and the reporter of the bill who also happens to be a member of the finance committee and we voted on a vote of four three to approve the bill and ask that it move forward. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, senator. I'd like to recognize the senator from Chittenden Southeast, senator Lyons, for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Virginia (Ginny) Lyons]: Oh, thank you, mister president. As is, usual for the senate appropriations committee, we have removed the $262,000, from, from the bill as proposed and understanding that the, an appropriation for the twenty twenty seven fiscal year would be needed in order for the hiring of the two staff positions, the staff attorney and the executive officer for the board for the for the program to begin. So and as a senator from Addison has indicated, we need start up money to begin a new program, and the $262,000, should it become available, would, allow for that to occur. And then following that, fees collected would support the program in the future. Your committee on appropriations voted seven zero zero with the language that's included on page six twenty four. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, senator.

[Senator Scott Beck]: It's a point of information. Senator. Related to s two zero six. I probably heard the term educator a 100 times in the report, and I recognize the intent of

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator, if I might, we are on the question of shall we amend as proposed by the Committee on Appropriations? Is your

[Senator Scott Beck]: I'll pause. Thanks.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. So the question, as I just said, is shall the recommendation of the amendment of the Committee on Health and Welfare be amended as proposed by the committee on appropriations? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed nay.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Nay.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you have amended the bill as recommended by the committee on appropriations. Next question is, shall the senate amend the bill as recommended by the committee on health and welfare as amended? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Scott Beck]: If it's appropriate, mister president, I still would like to to ask this point of information related to s two zero six. Again, in in the report, we heard the term educator over a 100 times, at least somewhere in that ballpark. And I'm curious why this bill was never referred, at least shared with the Senate Committee on Education in the process of being reviewed. Being that the quality of child education is at the heart of this particular bill.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: If I might take Thank you, Senator. If I might ask the senator from Rutland. The senate secretary confirms my my understanding of the process, which is bills go to one committee, and then if they affect the revenues of the state or the appropriations of the state, they would go to a money committee, but it would take an additional motion for someone to move it to another, policy committee other than that first recipient.

[Senator Scott Beck]: K. Thank you, mister president. I appreciate it.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Senator from Maryland. Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the report of the bill?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator will be interrogated.

[Senator Terry Williams]: So the senator the reporter and I were in, went through this process of health and welfare and education committees couple years ago, and we took a lot of testimony. We ended up passing the bill, which provided for funding for additional child care seats. And I just I have a couple questions about, whether there's enough data to actually prove that, this bill is gonna help to increase the seats. For example, can we point to any data showing a professional licensure increases the level of available child care seats?

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: I don't wanna I wanna make sure I'm not misspeaking. There is evidence in other, professions that licensure increases, folks' willingness or desire to become part of that profession. It tends to elevate status. It tends to add clarity to, the job and it tends to be valued by our society. So it does, yes, there is evidence that having licensure will increase uptake.

[Senator Terry Williams]: So analysis has been conducted, on how these licensure requirements will impact small home based providers, if any?

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: The thrust of this bill is to ensure, as we're doing in other areas of education, to try to ensure equity and quality across the state. So we heard from a lot of home care professionals, some of which I quoted in my witness list, who are really excited about this possibility, this licensure, this future of licensure. Obviously, there are always folks who don't want change and don't agree with the change. So it's hard to know exactly what, the outcome will be. But again, the the goal of this is that we will be increasing quality and we will be increasing access across the state of Vermont, including in rural areas. And the hope is that those folks who are running, home, education, programs will get their ECE2 or their ECE3 license so that they will be part of that professional family in the state of Vermont. I hope that answers the question, mister president.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Thank you, mister president. It actually doesn't because, you know, we've thrown a lot of money at this daycare issue with with very limited success. We have increased the number of seats. We've increased the number of daycare facilities. But my concern is that given the documented decline in home based care rural Vermont, how does this bill prevent further loss in that sector? I've had just last weekend, I had two call calls from constituents with issues about regulation and increased requirements put upon them, including fees that probably don't put them out of business. So I'm just concerned whether we have the data that proves that licensure and the additional funding that we're gonna spend for, for the, fees is gonna increase the number of seats and day care facilities, which we desperately need.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Do you have a question, senator? Or

[Senator Terry Williams]: Justice Baruth. If we have any doubt, it's gonna proves to the contrary.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: Mister president, I will certainly I apologize if I don't feel like I have specific data to that question at my fingertips. I'm happy to provide it at third reading. But if I may, I would just like to reiterate, the importance, especially in this moment, of improving the quality of childcare that we have in the state of Vermont. And there is a lot of evidence that quality of child childhood education is incredibly important. It does make a difference. And from where I sit, it's not fair that some kids in the state are getting high quality early childhood education and others might not be. So the goal of this bill is to make sure that every child in the state of Vermont is provided with excellent early childhood education, and that is what we are are trying to achieve here. I recently met with a constituent who works for a nonprofit called Vermont Kin as parents, and they work with kids who are either in foster care or looking to be fostered. They're in the system. They've suffered from abuse or neglect. And one of the things he said to me is, it's so important that we have knowledgeable, well trained educators because it's not just teaching, reading and writing and numbers anymore. It's being trauma informed. More and more of our children are coming to us with trauma. And unless you know how to recognize trauma and how to respond to it appropriately, you could be doing harm and damage to kids. That's what we're trying to fix here, and that's critically important. So I will leave it at that. I will certainly try to provide specific data for the senator, on third reading if that would be suitable for him.

[Senator Terry Williams]: I take the report, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, senator.

[Senator Terry Williams]: And I support early child education workforce, but the data shows that I've seen, our problem is not licensed through its access. Access. Programs are not operating at full capacity due to staffing shortages, but we've lost significant number of home based providers. Before adding new requirements and fees, we need to be sure we're increasing seats, not reducing. Thank you, mister president.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. I just wanna underscore a point that the senator from Chittenden, the reporter of the bill, is making. And and I just wanna, tell a little bit of a story about my experience with the office of professional regulation. Early in my tenure here at the legislature, I introduced a bill to require, licensure of, massage therapists. And I did it because of an experience in my district with a massage therapist who created harm against a significant number of my constituents. And OPR at that time was not in favor of regulation. And I I tell this story with the former director of OPR in the chamber right now. And they came back, and I said, well, I I know that this is a possibility. It happened to 70 of my constituents. And, they came back saying we need to do what's called a sunrise review. And a sunrise review is a review that OPR does to determine whether or not they should regulate a profession. The reporter of the bill talked about this, but I think it's really worth underscoring. Because part of that sunrise review determines whether or not regulation can prevent harm, harm of people who are receiving services from a profession. And in the case of massage therapists, it was about, sexual harm that some, people in my district, had, received because of a massage therapist. And ultimately their Sunrise review stated that they should, license that profession and regulate that profession, and they have done so. And it has been really really effective. And one of the things in the Sunrise Review for early childhood educators was also that without regulating the profession there is the possibility of harm. And who would that harm be to, mister president? That harm would be to the youngest Vermonters. The babies, the toddlers, the young children who are, going to early childhood education programs throughout our state. And this is not to say that early childhood educators abuse children because the vast vast majority, many of whom are in this chamber, are amazing amazing people and amazing teachers and educators and care deeply for children in Vermont. But there are occasions when harm can be done. And if a profession is not regulated correctly, is not regulated, sufficiently, and not regulated by the appropriate regulator, which in this case, I do think is the office of professional regulation because they are really experienced with regulating professions across the state. If the regulation isn't done in an effective way, there can be harm done and that harm would be done to the children of Vermont. So the the the point of regulation is not to create more slots in our child care system. The point of regulation is to make sure that the slots that are available are safely safely regulated, that they have appropriate educators in the room doing the right things, and that they have the criteria, the credentials, the education, and the oversight necessary to care for children, to educate children, and to provide high quality excellent childcare, which is across the board proven to be effective and cost effective in educating and caring for children and cost effective to all of us Vermonters. Cost effective to the to the residents of Vermont, the taxpayers of Vermont, to the parents of Vermont to make sure that their kids get the high quality care they deserve. That's what happens, mister president, when we have a well regulated profession. And the reporter of the bill is absolutely right. People want to work in a rep well regulated profession. It makes them feel that they have the status, the protections for themselves as educators, and are more likely to go into the field of early childhood education, more likely to get the respect and the compensation they deserve, and more likely to open their own childcare centers across the state, including home based care providers and center based care providers. So, mister president, regulating child care is an important step in in protecting our children from harm, creating a a safe and effective, system for early childhood education and producing more early childhood educators that lead to more slots in our system to care for our children. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator for Madison.

[Senator Christopher Bray]: Mister president, could I ask for a brief recess to

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: talk with, speaker? We'll take a brief recess. Senate, please come to order.

[Senator Virginia (Ginny) Lyons]: These are not.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The junior senator from Addison, you have the floor.

[Senator Christopher Bray]: Thank you, mister president. I would like to make a motion to move this bill into the education committee for further review.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, mister president. I would say across the board, generally speaking, I oppose moving bills off the floor when when they are ready for action. In this case, we've been through three different committees and two different years. The Senate already voted a version of this bill out last year. It doesn't seem to me that, the Senator's request to recommit comes out of necessity. So with that said, mister president, I would hope that the body would continue our action on this bill, through unavoidable reasons. We're a little detained today, so we're running a little late. So I'll hope for this vote to be voted down, and then we can continue to our final business and final vote.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Franklin.

[Senator Randy Brock]: Mister president, this is a bill about education, and it's about childhood education and early childhood education. It's a bill based on what I've heard so far. There are questions that should have been asked that haven't been asked. We haven't seen the other side of the picture. You know, if if if you recall the the chat if the chamber will recall, we looked at issues like this when we talked about the professionalization of early childhood childcare, which became and morphed into childhood education. And even at that time and since, there have been a number of studies that have said that as defined right now and as early education is being used, it has some problems. We heard about the studies that say that early childhood education does a great job for the three and four year olds, But there's a lot of data out there. There are a number of studies out there that say the end result of that is after two or three or four years after that early education. That there's a reversion in many, many cases to the same place they would have been had they not had that early education in the first place. There's still debate on this. And I've heard, I gather, that the testimony that been presented to the regulatory body, in this case, the secretary of state's office, may not have reflected all of that. I think this is an education issue, and it's the first step, and it could be an extremely costly step. We just see now the creation of various categories of people who will be employees who have certain certifications by the state. We also see now we've created a board to manage and oversee that, and that board now has a lawyer attached to it. You know what that typically means? And I see here a monster being created that has not been looked at thoroughly and hasn't been looked at thoroughly by the one organization in this chamber that's responsible for education. And I think that's a mistake. That's a great mistake. We should get the facts. We should make decisions on the basis of competent evidence, and we should look at the entirety of the picture, one-sided, a one-sided part

[Senator Seth Bongartz]: of the part of the picture.

[Senator Randy Brock]: And I strongly believe that the motion made by the senator from Addison is an appropriate measure that it should go to the committee that is responsible for education and that we should have a thorough review of what this entails and also what this means to Vermont in the long term in terms of creating professions that are involved in education that are the key to what gets delivered to our school system. And that where we are right now, we're not there. And we should not be voting on the bill without it having the opportunity to be looked at thoroughly by the education committee, the responsible committee. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Terry Williams]: Roll call.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Roll call has been requested, and when the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Two points of inquiry, mister president. Does this motion require a simple majority of senators present? Yes. And second question, my understanding of crossover is bills that aren't, out of the policy committees by that date would then need special dispensation from the other chamber to be considered this, legislative session. If this goes back to the senate education, would that, then basically reset the fact that they had met crossover and then require that special dispensation?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: If it goes back to committee, when it comes out, it will go to our rules committee, and they will decide whether it moves on or whether it is parked.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Clarification, mister president, our rules committee, but would the senate would the house chamber, when they receive it, also have to consider whether or not

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: We have no control over the other body. That that said, as you've been here for a while, you have may have seen several bills that didn't meet crossover that went this way and several that went that way, and it's all a matter of who wants to get stuff done at that point.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Alright. Thank you, mister president. I'm gonna vote against this motion because I think I want the conversation to continue, but I trust the house chamber that we don't have any control over, to take up the concerns that have been raised today. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the bill be committed to education as offered by the senator from Addison? Are you ready for the question? If so oh, if so, the secretary shall call the roll.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: No.

[Senator Scott Beck]: No.

[Senator Robert Plunkett]: No.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Harrison. No. Senator Hashim. No.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Senator Heffernan.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Yay. Senator Kingalls. Yes. Senator Lyons. No. Senator Major. No. Senator Matos.

[Senator Christopher Bray]: Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Morley? No. Senator Norris? Yes. Senator Pershing? No. Senator Plunkett? No. Senator Rob Hinsdale?

[Senator Anne Watson]: No.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Bahoski. Senator Watson. No. Senator Weeks. Yes. Senator Westman. No. Senator White.

[Senator Virginia (Ginny) Lyons]: No. Senator Williams.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Yes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Those voting yes, nine. Those voting no, 19. And the motion fails. The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered as recommended by the committee on health and welfare as amended. Are you ready for the question? Senator for Addison.

[Senator Christopher Bray]: Yes, mister president. One thing that bothered me a lot about this bill was that the actual parents were not brought in to be asked what their beliefs were just the professionals which I think that's a problem that we work for Vermonters and we should hear from Vermont parents.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: That's all

[Senator Christopher Bray]: I'd like to say.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Bennington.

[Senator Seth Bongartz]: Mister president, I have concerns about this bill because I'm worthwhile while on the one hand, I'm very supportive of early childhood education, our childcare centers, the work they do. I've served on the board of one of them. We give my wife and I give to them every year. First, I'm actually supportive of what this bill on one level is seeking to do. And I know that all my centers fear are are in favor of this, and I want to be supportive of them. But I'm really worried about childcare slots. And I'm really worried about the language, especially that doesn't allow home daycares to continue or to be licensed after '29. And while I'm either even willing to think about how we can professionalize that part of the system as well, when one one person on the floor today said it's not about the number of slots, well, it actually is about the number of slots because people need to work and they need to have a place that's safe and where the children will be well cared for and while it would be great in my view with everything we're at this level that we're seeking to attain, there's parts of the state where that's not gonna happen. And what I'm worried about is that I would rather have the people who need a place for the children to go that's safe and with with somewhat would, even willing to think about how we attain a level of professionalization beyond what may be there now. But I want to make sure that we're not by saying this leaving a whole deep hole underneath of that with nothing. And so I wanna use the time between today and tomorrow to see if it's important. I believe we should actually have more home child care centers not fewer. And I'm gonna think about how we do that and what that means. But I'm really worried about the loss of childcare slots because I know what that means for people who are desperate to find them. And I know that we have a severe shortage. So I wanna think about how we can bridge that gap. So I'm gonna vote yes today because there's a lot of this bill that I I support and I really appreciate the work and I'm not standing up. I'm not trying to be negative here today. That's not my my point. My point is I'm really worried about childcare slots for people who need them desperately and I want to make sure that we're not in the name of whatever it is that the level we're trying to achieve that we actually leave a whole lot of people with nothing. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Thank you, mister president. I'm worried about this bill because I am concerned about slots as well. The predecessor of all of this knocked out 80% of the day cares in the state. So grandma on Maple Street is no more. And I I'm very I'm very bothered by that. As somebody who started a daycare when I was married and had two kids, we were not happy with the level of daycares and how expensive it was with two parents starting out at the scale of not having a lot of money. One of the parents just to go to work was spending more dollars to for daycare than what it was that that parent was bringing home. So we started a daycare and probably didn't do it in a smart way, although we believed it was, we actually charged less. And at that time gave my wife at that time a chance to stay home and to raise the kids and to help other parents who were in the same situation as we were not having a lot of money but offering a very strong home based childcare center and it worked very well. And I thought we did a nice job. And to this day, we are thanked by those kids that went to that daycare. So I think we're headed in the wrong direction in daycare in the state of Vermont. We don't have a very good history in the last three or four to five years as far as being very responsible to make sure that we are providing enough slots and confident daycares to where these parents can go to work and do a good job. Need to be a no on this bill. And I've wrestled with that decision, but I keep on going back to the decisions that were made previous to what this, is trying to do, which is we knocked out too many day cares and now we're trying to build back and I don't know that we're doing it responsibly. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you Mr. President. I I This bill does not do away with family child care providers. Family child care providers are can continue beyond 01/01/2029. It's the final family child care provider license that ends then and then after that family child care providers, would obtain one of the other three licensers licenses. And so the the idea of the bill is that there's a sort of legacy license for existing family child care providers that is provided first. And then after that, after 01/01/2029, they would just go into the same licensure structure that others have. So it's not saying that there can't be home care providers after, 01/01/2029. And I just want to correct the record a little bit Mr. President. We passed Act 76, in this chamber, in this building, three years ago, I believe it was, and, that was one of the most consequential pieces of legislation that I've ever worked on and I think many other people in this chamber. The impact that that legislation had on increasing the number of child care slots are available in the first year alone, they increased a thousand slots in the state. And and the numbers of the number of new, child care programs both center based programs and home based programs have increased significantly and I'm sure that, the reporter of the bill can get us those numbers for a third reading but it was a significant increase in the number of slots, for child care. New centers opened in my district, Middlebury and Salisbury, in Addison, in Ripton, and, in, I believe, Starksboro. I'm sure the same thing happened in many of your, districts too. Increased slots because act 76 infused a significant amount of funding but also a significant amount of structure, a significant amount of respect, support, and energy into our child care system. Act 76 was one of the most successful pieces of legislation to come out of this, chamber in the past decade, and, it is it is not correct to say that it reduced the number of slots in in the state. It increased them. And this bill is getting at making sure that the system that was revived by act 76 has high quality educators to staff the programs that were created as a result of the good work that happened in Act 76. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: I want to take my colleague from Addison, who just said what she said because, as a matter of fact, I do have numbers, at my fingertips. Act 76, added 5,000 additional children and families, to to access tuition assistance. It added over a 100 new childcare programs that, have opened since act 76, creating 1,700 new spaces, and 400 new jobs for early childhood educators have been created. This is all because of act 76. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Franklin.

[Senator Randy Brock]: Thank you, mister president. I I would love for my education to work. I would love it to be affordable. I would load it love it to give results. But what I'm looking at is since act 76, there are some more statistics. The cost of education has continued to climb to among the highest in the nation again, and the educational performance on standardized tests among our students who are educated in our better system has continued to decline. Thank you,

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Thank you, mister president. And I just heard the data from the reporter of the bill. I I asked her to go back and double check for the most recent data, but I still wanna see the data before the next three years. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator Rutland.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Thank you, mister president. So it's becoming pretty evident that there won't be a unanimous vote on

[Senator Nader Hashim]: this bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: And much like my colleague from Chittenden Central, the reporter of the bill, I was not a yes at the beginning. We had a look at this last year in the senate government operations committee, took great testimony. There is a multiyear ramp to come up to compliance. I think that's important. I think it's now eight or nine years. So I will be supporting the bill, and I wanted to keep it short, so I did.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, mister president. I I hadn't really planned to speak, but, it's hard to hear the most recent data reported and then to have the reporter of that data asked for more recent data. It it may be difficult to believe, but the senator from Addison is absolutely correct. Act 76 has been, I would say, fantastically successful. It was meant to create slots. It has created 1,700 slots. It has created 100 new programs. Those are facts. So all I would say is you may have questions about the professionalization of childcare, it's fair. But please don't question what has been a very systematic and successful move in Vermont. We have become a national model for what we're doing on childcare. And this professionalization step was always a part of the vision for what we're doing. So the idea was yes to create lots more slots, lots more programs and then in the midst of that to allow our workers to be paid a higher wage and to get them to a higher professional stand. So this is very much in keeping with that as I said earlier we've already passed out a version of this bill so this is not the first time we've come to this vote, I am an enthusiastic yes and I hope the chamber will join. Thank you Mr. President.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia (Ginny) Lyons]: Thank you, mister president. I can't let the bill go by with a vote without speaking to a bill that I have been working on for many years. So when we passed act 76, act 76 was, obviously, there was a ten year process to develop that bill with a lot of, folks in the community. But my own experience with early childhood education goes back to when I was teaching liberal arts and working with early childhood educators, professors, and then teaching brain and behavior to some of the early childhood, potential early childhood educators at my institution and know how undervalued both the students and the professors were. And they continue to be that way. And it's unfortunate because the knowledge that they carry about how to take care of a baby to teach a baby how to read with psychotic eye movements by the time they're 11 old. So we don't think about that. And as parents, we sit with our kids because we love them, and we teach them to move their eyes from left to right or right to left, depending on your language, as they learn to read. So those little things are key for an early childhood educator to determine right from wrong before the age of four. And I by right to wrong, I mean when when a when a doll's head breaks off or when a truck tire breaks off, that that's wrong. And to understand that that's wrong. Early childhood educators understand that. We as parents, we spend time with our kids because we love them, and we want them to know right from wrong. Educators learn the neurodevelopment, the relationship between what's happening physically, emotionally, and help kids grow at an early age. Now one of the things that I did, years ago, and I the I know there's not a lot of support for that bill now or that law, the remote worker program. But when I interviewed remote workers, to put that bill in place a bit ago, I found out that their number one issue in moving to Vermont was child care. We wanna see good childcare centers that are licensed appropriately and run effectively. And guess what? We're working on that. We worked on that with act 76. The other two things they wanted was a good public education system, and the other thing that they wanted to see was the environment and a place to live that they could enjoy our state. So, mister president, all of those things are come to a culmination of who's regulating the centers. The CDD regulates the centers, their license, and now we have professionals who are working in those centers who are left without license, without oversight. This is an opportunity for us. This is a huge opportunity. We can take a step forward, just in this state, but across the country demonstrating how to do it right. We're talking about people who are putting their children into childcare, people who work, two parents working, one parent working, single family, single parent family, and they need to leave their kids all day. They wanna ensure that the what the the care that their children are getting is equivalent to what they would get at home. They want to know how that their kids are being taught to read effectively, that they have the emotional support that they need, that it is trauma informed as the senator from Chittenden Central has indicated earlier. So there's a lot here, mister president. It isn't just about the word educator. Early childhood educators have been educators for a long time. You know, I won't tell you how long ago it was when I was teaching teaching them. It was a bit ago. But they're educators. They do it in a different way. They hold the babies and do it in a different way. They work with a two year old. They work with a

[Senator Ann Cummings]: three year old in

[Senator Virginia (Ginny) Lyons]: a different way. You know? And by the time the kids get to to preschool, the four or five get go into public school, they're ready, and their parents know that they're ready. So, mister president, I honestly encourage the senate to support this bill. Send it forward. Sure. There are things that we may wanna consider going forward. And if you have an amendment, bring it into our committee tomorrow. We'd love to look at it. And I I know that it has a bit of a journey. It's not over. But, you know, please support the bill. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, Mr. President. I, rise in support of the bill and I want to just, articulate what this means to me as a parent of a young child, who has had to do some shopping of childcare facilities because first of all, truly it takes a village because sometimes places are closed and you have to have backups, you have to have backups with backups of who's going to watch your small human. And so, I'm sure as any parent knows, you have to develop all of those, and there's always questions. Is this person a safe person for me to leave my child with? And I what I see this bill as doing is answering that question. Is this a quality establishment? Are are these people trustworthy to be watching my child? So, you know, just some of the the questions that came up for me as I was shopping for a childcare facility, Questions like, how much time do you do you plop the kids down in front of a television? Like, how much screen time is expected? How much time are they spending outside? What are your disciplinary practice? How much sugar are you gonna be giving

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: my child?

[Senator Anne Watson]: Like, there's there's this huge range of concerns that I, as a parent, am bringing to the question of is this a quality establishment? So I don't see this bill as, reducing the number of, for example, the family based, or, you know, in home facilities that are not regulated, programs. We're still gonna need those. I know I have needed those, and I will continue to need those, and so as so many families in Vermont will. But for these regulated programs, it is going to give me as a parent a lot of assurance that what they're doing what my child is doing during the day is in their best long term interest and not just, let's say, to plop them in front of a television as an example. Thank you very much.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden North.

[Senator Robert Plunkett]: Thank you, mister president. I guess, also, as a as a parent, I have a one and a three year old, so might be in the minority of the senate once again about where I fall. But I also wear another hat where I'm the chair of the board of the center where my children go. So they go to a day care center, child care center, then we also offer other services to the community, and then also have the senate hat on. So I I think I'm pretty in tune with with the early childhood education. And like the other senator from Washington, I want I don't want my child sitting in front of a television all day and eating sugar and things of that nature. I don't think we even have TV in our center, which is great. But I will say that last year when this bill came up, I was a yes. But if you give me long enough to think about something, that might change my mind. And after going through this bill again, the family provider section is one that was kind of a little bit of a hold up for me. Yes. I do understand you have two more years to be able to have one of those licenses, and and that gives the folks the opportunity right now to be able to get that license. But I'm thinking ten, twelve, fifteen years out, if that person who is 15 years old right now and wants to have that and doesn't make it through the level, I believe, ECE level two to be a family provider after 01/01/2029. I might ask the reporter to bill that a little later, but I believe it's level two. That could actually restrict the amount of spots that we have for our children to go to in this state. And, you know,

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I don't have a report

[Senator Robert Plunkett]: on it. I have lived experiences of it. We have a lady in Melton who had a fantastic family provider area that she had, and talking about the kids that went through there my age, you know, we have nurse practitioners that came through our program, engine builders, we have sonographers, we have software engineers all went through that family program. So I don't want to discount what those those programs offer to our state and especially in areas where you might not have a larger center close by. As we talk about not wanting to go for half hour, forty five minutes, an hour car ride to get your child to childcare. I'm fortunate enough where it's right in town, but not everybody is that fortunate. And sometimes you may have to in my community, we have folks that drop off in Milton, and then they're rush to Colchester, and then they're come back towards Essex to get their three kids into different spots, which which is very difficult, I would imagine. But I just want to bring up the fact that we don't want to limit these options. I know I've heard a lot today that we're not limiting it, but in a sense we are because in two years, three years, you're

[Senator Christopher Bray]: not going be able to

[Senator Robert Plunkett]: get that family provider license. And I've come a long way. I've had a lot of good conversations with folks that surround this bill, and one of my biggest ones was with an ECE level one, having that barrier there. You have to have a hundred and twenty hours before you can be that EC level one. But come to find out, can still work in the center. You can still work towards retaining that. You still, right now, as being in the center, have to have hours and trainings to be able to be you know an assistant teacher in the center so I've come back a little bit on that thought I still think a one hundred and twenty hours quite a few hours for somebody that's maybe right out of high school trying to figure out what they wanna do with their life. You know? I thought I was gonna be a CPA when I came out of high school, and I'm here now and not a CPA. Take that for what you will. So I I don't wanna have a barrier for for two lanes. Somebody that wants to get into the field that may not know if they wanna go into that that field, and then also if they wanna be able to create that family provider role because we do need slots. Mean, childcare, if you are not on the assistance program for an infant child, can be several $100 a week, which is thousands of dollars a month. And we can't lose sight of that. That is very expensive if you are not getting a subsidy to have your child go to a child care center. So having those family provider outlets while also providing the quality of care also overseen by CDD I think shouldn't be lost on us as a body to restrict that avenue but I guess I do have, just a couple of quick I know it's late I know it's almost two I do apologize, but I just have a couple of quick questions for the reporter to bill if I could, please.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The reporter is interrogated. Thank

[Senator Robert Plunkett]: you, mister president. Can the senator tell me a little bit why the after school childcare program is exempt

[Senator Christopher Bray]: from these regulations?

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: First off, mister president, if I swoon from lack of nourishment, I apologize. Please just pick me up and I'll try again. After school programs are not being contemplated, in terms of being regulated by OPR in this bill.

[Senator Robert Plunkett]: Did that

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: answer the question?

[Senator Robert Plunkett]: No. But I think, I think what I'm getting at is that the center that I'm a part of as well, we provide the after school program in the school, and those employees for the after school center are providing care and education to the students that it's serving. So why would we want to exempt those individuals if the the main point of the bill is having qualified individuals educating the students of our system k through

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: eight years old.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: So my understanding and, if need be, maybe we can take a risk, but my understanding is that this bill is contemplating home care and, early childhood programs and, early childhood home providers and not after school programs. I I'm not exactly sure what else to say.

[Senator Robert Plunkett]: I would

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: After school programs are different entity.

[Senator Robert Plunkett]: Thank you, senator. I'd be happy to have, another maybe the chair of the committee answer that question if they would like to defer.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia (Ginny) Lyons]: Thank you. The after school program is a distinctly separate program with separate funding, and that funding, can be given to different entities, libraries and others, through grants that would support, programs for kids when they are not in school. It's not necessarily after school, but it's out of school. So it's not this type of program. This is what we're talking about here is are related to child care centers, regulated child and licensed child care centers, and we're looking at the folks who work in those centers.

[Senator Robert Plunkett]: Okay. Thank you. I thank the senator for that answer. I guess at this time I will, in the interest of time, leave the questions at that for today. But I hope, you know, we can work over the course of the next day to look further at that family provider role and what that licensure could look like and what the requirements could be, because I I do understand that you would have another 01/01/2029 to be able to apply for that. But those folks after, that might not be be an option unless they attain that e z level two level. So, I thank the reporter, and I thank the committee for the work that they've done, and thank you, mister.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Terry Williams]: Roll call. Yes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Roll call has been requested, and when the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on health and welfare as amended? Are you ready for the question? If so, the secretary shall call the roll.

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

[Senator Scott Beck]: No with explanation.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Benson? Yes. Senator Bongartz? Yes. Senator Brandon? Yes. Senator Brock? No. Senator Chittenden? Yes. Senator Clarkson? Senator Caledonia? Yes. Senator Tubo? No. Senator Lyons?

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Major? Yes. Senator Matos? No. Senator Morley?

[Senator Robert Plunkett]: Yes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Those voting yes, 21. Those voting no, seven. The ayes have it, and you've amended the bill as recommended by the committee on health and welfare as amended. Senator from Caledonia for your explanation.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you, mister president. I'm on it in the middle of a workforce shortage and affordability crisis. Increasing the requirements to enter a profession will exacerbate both of these problems and further increase the cost of early childhood education. I feel that this effect will be particularly acute in rural Vermont unless I vote no.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The question is shall the bill be read a third time? Oh, Senator from Addison for your explanation.

[Senator Christopher Bray]: I voted yes because the bill is a good bill. However, I'm very upset that parents weren't brought in to be a part of it because it affects their lives and their child's lives.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Aye. Nay.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you've ordered third reading of s two zero six. And that completes the orders of the day. Senator from Chittenden. Thank

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Could we have quiet in the chamber, please?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, mister president. Pending announcements, I would move that the senate stand in adjournment until 11AM, Thursday, 03/19/2026.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are there any announcements? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Thank you, mister president. Senate finance will meet in ten minutes. We were scheduled to start at 01:15. I hope the cafeteria is still open so you can bring your lunch down.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca (Becca) White]: Oh, mister president. Tonight is farmers' night. Perhaps Caramoto will be playing, and I implore all of you to be there.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Washington.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: President, senator appropriations will meet at 01:00. Oh, wait. That was fifty

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: five minutes ago.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: We will meet at 02:00.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Windham.

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: Thank you, mister president. Senate institutions will meet at 02:00.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Rutland.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Thank you, mister president. Government operations will meet at 02:30.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Bennington.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate stand in adjournment until 11AM, Thursday, 03/19/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we'll stand in adjournment until 11AM, Thursday, 03/19/2020