Vermont Legislature Senate Session - 2026-03-31

Meetings

Call to Order, Moment of Silence, and Pledge of Allegiance (00:06:17)
The presiding officer called the Senate to order, held a moment of silence, and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
JRS 47 — Weekend Adjournment Resolution (00:06:58)
The joint resolution setting the weekend adjournment schedule was read and adopted on a voice vote.
SR 25 — Taiwan Friendship Resolution (00:07:54)
Rules were suspended to take up SR 25; after explanation and third reading, the Senate adopted the resolution on a 27–0 roll call.
Introduction of House Bill H.949 (Education Finance) (00:15:54)
H.949, relating to homestead and non-homestead property tax rates and education finance changes, received first reading and was referred to Education.
S.142 — Internationally Trained Physicians (Third Reading) (00:17:11)
The bill on pathways to licensure for internationally trained physicians was read the third time and passed on a voice vote.
S.190 — Green Mountain Care Board Reference-Based Pricing and Hospital Outsourcing (Third Reading) (00:17:50)
After a minor amendment was adopted and debate held, the bill passed on a 23–6 roll call.
S.193 — Forensic Facility for Certain Criminal Justice-Involved Persons (Second Reading) (00:27:46)
Judiciary presented the bill establishing a forensic facility; Health and Welfare and Institutions amendments were adopted, and third reading was ordered.
S.198 — Regulation and Taxation of Tobacco Products and Substitutes (Second Reading) (01:04:13)
Economic Development and Finance reports were presented; Appropriations and floor amendments were adopted; third reading was ordered on a voice vote.
S.214 — Prekindergarten in Geographically Isolated Districts (Second Reading) (01:46:50)
Education and Finance reported the bill; it was amended as recommended and ordered to third reading.
Member Announcements and Committee Meeting Notices (01:53:02)
Members announced same-day committee meeting times and an event in the cafeteria.
Adjournment (01:52:33)
On motion, the Senate agreed to stand in adjournment until 1:00 PM on Wednesday, 04/01/2026.

Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip

[Speaker 0]: Not quite. He

[Sen. Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: gets it. Oh, that was

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Will senate please come to order? We'll observe a moment of silence in lieu of a devotional this morning. Thank you. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Are there any announcements? Seeing none, we have JRS 47 joint resolution relating to weekend adjournment on 04/03/2026 introduced by senator Baruth. Listen to the first reading of the bill. Resolution.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) / Reading Clerk]: Resolved by the senate and house of representatives that when the two houses adjourn on Friday, 04/03/2026, it'd be to meet again no later than Tuesday, 04/07/2026.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the reading of the resolution and the question is, shall the senate adopt the resolution on its part? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it. We've adopted the resolution. We now have s r 25 senate resolution relating to Taiwan introduced by the committee on economic development. Listen to the first reading of the resolution.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) / Reading Clerk]: S r 25 senate resolution reaffirming the abiding friendship between the state of Vermont and The Republic Of China, Taiwan, on the twenty seventh anniversary of the Vermont Taiwan sister state relationship and supporting enhanced Vermont Taiwan bilateral relations and Taiwan's participation in international organizations.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Now the resolution has been read the first time. It is treated as a committee bill and pursuant to rule 48 is placed on the calendar for notice the next succeeding day. Senator from Chittenden.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. I would move at this time that the senate suspend its rules and bring up s r 25 pending notice for immediate action.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The senator has moved that the rules be suspended and the s r 25 be taken up for immediate consideration. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we will take up s r 25 for immediate consideration. We have on the calendar for action s r do I have a copy? Thank you, sir.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: S r 25 introduced by the Committee on Economic Development. Please listen to the second reading of the resolution.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) / Reading Clerk]: S r 25, senate resolution reaffirming the abiding friendship between the state of Vermont and The Republic Of China, Taiwan, on the twenty seventh anniversary of the Vermont Taiwan sister state relationship and supporting enhanced Vermont Taiwan bilateral relations and Taiwan's participation in international organizations.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I recognize the senator from Franklin for the explanation of the resolution.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Franklin)]: Thank you, mister president. By looking at this resolution, which is in considerable detail, I think it's evident the important relationship that we have with Taiwan, sister state relationship since 1999, and the effect of that relationship bilaterally on the trade and other activities of both nations. I'm pleased today to recognize the fact that we have representatives of The Republic Of Taiwan here with us in the chamber today, and we welcome them. I've had the pleasure of going to Taiwan a number of times, in my prior career in the business world. And there, I found a place that had tremendous receptivity, tremendous interest in commerce, and the ability to do commerce in the way that we in The United States like to do commerce with a friend and not necessarily a competitor, but someone who works alongside us to get things done. In 2025, Taiwan was America's fourth largest trading partner. Imagine that. Country the size of Taiwan geographically, the fourth largest trading partner that we have with U. S. Exports valued at $54,700,000,000 and imports from Taiwan worth roughly $201,400,000 for the first time in over a quarter of a century. The United States was Vermont's largest export market. And in the agricultural sector, U. S. Exports to Taiwan totaled approximately $2,300,000,000 We also noted that in 2025, Vermont exports to Taiwan were worth approximately $268,000,000 and Taiwan was Vermont's most valuable Asian export destination and second worldwide. And Vermont imported an estimated 76,000,000 worth of goods from Taiwan. This resolution reaffirms the abiding friendship between the state of Vermont and the Republic Of Taiwan, Republic Of China Taiwan on the twenty seventh anniversary of our Taiwan, Vermont sister state trading relationship and support advanced Vermont Taiwan bilateral relation and Taiwan's participation in international organizations. We welcome Taiwan. We wish them success, and we wanna reaffirm our trading relationship and our relationship as a nation between our two countries today.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the resolution 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. Senator from Chittenden.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. At this time, I would move that the senate suspend its rules, and move to third reading of s r 25.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to read excuse me, through yes. To put s r 25 through all remaining stages of passage. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it and the motion carries. Please listen to the third reading.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) / Reading Clerk]: SR 25. Senate resolution reaffirming the abiding friendship between the state of Vermont and The Republic Of China, Taiwan, on the twenty seventh anniversary of the Vermont Taiwan sister state relationship and supporting enhanced Vermont Taiwan bilateral relations and Taiwan's participation in international organizations.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the third reading of the resolution, and the question is, shall the resolution be adopted. Are you ready for the question?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Roll call please.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Roll call has been requested and when the vote is taken it shall be by roll. Are you ready for the question? If so, the secretary shall call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) — time-bound override]: Senator Ruth? Yes. Senator Beck?

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) — time-bound override]: Yes. Senator Penson? Senator Morley. Yes. Senator Dorris. Yes. Senator Pershing. Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) — time-bound override]: Senator Plunkett. Yes. Senator Ron Hinsdale.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden) — time-bound override]: Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) — time-bound override]: Senator Mahovsky. Senator Watson. Yes.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Those voting yes, 27. Those voting no, zero. And the senate has adopted the resolution. We now have house bills for introduction. We have h nine forty nine, an act relating to homestead property tax yields, the non homestead property tax rate, and technical changes to education finance. It passed the house on 03/26/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) / Reading Clerk]: Page nine forty nine. An act relating to homestead property tax yields, the non homestead property tax rate, and technical changes to education finance.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, it's referred to the committee on education. Orders of the day.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: One forty two.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: That's a third reading, John. I think he want I was I was waiting. Senator from Chittenden.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thanks, mister president. If we could complete the third readings on, second page s one forty two and s one ninety, and then move back to the top of the page.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We have one forty two for third s one forty two 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) / Reading Clerk]: S one forty two, an act relating to a pathway to licensure for internationally trained physicians and medical graduates.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Now you have heard the third reading. The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Ayes have it and we passed s one forty two.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Okay.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We now have S 190 an act relating to the Green Mountain Care Board reference based pricing and hospital outsourcing of clinical care. It passed the House. This is third reading. Yeah. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Senator from Addison.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. I just have a very tiny amendment that I mentioned on the floor on second reading, which is just to add the finance and the ways and means committees to get two reports that are mentioned in the bill. So I will acknowledge that it did not take this to the committee but I think it's a very tiny amendment so I'm hoping that the chair of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee and her committee would be okay with this is just adding as I said two committees to receipt of a bill about the hospital provider tax and Lehigh study on health insurance. That is the amendment that you're getting passed out right now. Thank you Mr. Kesha.

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

[Sen. Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. As I indicated, on Friday, it sounds like a good idea. We had talked about having the report sent to the Health Reform Oversight Committee, and that committee does include finance and ways and means folks. So this this would be a friendly amendment to the bill. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the senator from Addison? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it. Listen to the are there any further amendments prior to third reading? Listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) / Reading Clerk]: S one ninety. An act relating to the Green Mountain Care Board reference based pricing and hospital outsourcing of clinical care.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Question is shall the bill pass?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Are you

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: ready for the question? Senator from Essex.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you Mr. President. I stood up on S 190 on second and I still have a lot of concerns about this bill. I did not vote against it on second reading but I actually thought a lot about this weekend. Yet again, we have another bill that we don't know much about nowhere is there a note on it. Nowhere can we point to where it's worth Nowhere and then with what's going on in healthcare in the state of Vermont where we're lagging behind our neighbors so much, especially in cost. I just have to be a no on this bill. I can't afford another bill that we don't know whether it hurts or whether it helps or it's indifferent. I don't know on the bill. Thank you, mister president. Excuse me, mister president. I also wanna thank my two colleagues on each side of me who worked very hard in that committee to get the bill a little bit more palatable so that at least the hospitals could support it. But at this point in time, I don't think anybody really wanted to support it, but it's one of those bills nonetheless. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Sen. Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. So last Friday on second reading, I did vote for the bill. Yesterday, the Rutland legislative delegation met with folks from the Rutland Regional Medical Center, and I was made aware of some serious concerns expressed in that meeting. I think most of us realize what cost shifting is. Hospital financial sustainability relies on a rather complex cost shift model. Government programs like Medicaid and Medicare consistently reimburse hospitals significantly less than the actual cost of providing care. To survive and continue to offer essential but subsidized services such as diabetic care and behavioral health services among others, hospitals have to rely on higher reimbursement rates from commercial payers like Blue Cross. Proposed proposed legislation included in this bill aims to implement reference based pricing, capping commercial reinvestment or reimbursement at 200% of Medicaid Medicare rates. So while the Rutland Hospital does recognize the need for meaningful reform in health care reimbursement, capping the rate at even 250% could have, and I say could have, some disabling results. The hospital estimates the reference based pricing in s one ninety would have a $13,000,000 impact annually to the Rutland Regional Medical Center. It could potentially mean some subsidized services like diabetic care, women's health care, even emergency services might have to be reduced or even cut. So with that in mind, mister president, I'll be voting no on the bill.

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

[Sen. Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. First, I would like to reassure my, senate colleagues that this bill will take us a step forward to be more like the rest of the country where reference based pricing does, go to the 250% level of payment, remembering that hospitals receive money from patients. So it's what comes out of our pocketbooks that that provide the budgets for for hospitals, that whatever we are whatever we're doing in this state has caused an exceptional increase in those costs, the highest in the country. So now it's time to roll up our sleeves, and the hospitals are doing that in their in transformation. But we are lucky in this state to have a regulatory body that can do analysis and help hospitals unravel the costly, effects that we're feeling in our state. I would I would I would also suggest that in section three of the bill, there's it allows a hospital to propose to the Green Mountain Care Board to adjust commercial rates for certain service lines if the reimbursement caps are negatively affecting access, quality, or sustainability of rural health care services. That's really important. So we're not talking about a a categorical cap. We're talking about a gradual change. Hospitals will have to work hard, and I think there's a there's a fear about that hard work. I completely agree. But the Green Mountain Care Board is volunteering, and we'll work with hospitals to ensure that by rolling up their sleeves, they'll be able to sustain the services that they have and to support the people within their, areas. And secondly, that by rolling up their sleeves, we'll be able to reduce the cost for us out of our pockets. So, mister president, I urge you to vote for the bill. When we talked with hospitals last week, they acknowledged the hard work that they are doing and that they have to continue to do. Absolutely no question about it. But it's time. As I presented to you on the floor on Friday, we've seen reference based prices escalate in this state for commercial payers. So it's time for us to look at the workers, the individuals, the people in small businesses who need this relief. And so I encourage you to vote positively for the bill. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Roll call.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Roll call has been requested, when the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. The question is, shall s one ninety pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, the secretary shall call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) — time-bound override]: Senator Baruth? Yes. Senator Beck? Yes. Senator Bongartz? Yes.

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

[Sen. Randy Brock (Franklin)]: Senator Brock? No.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Senator Chittenden? Yes. Senator Clarkson?

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) — time-bound override]: Yes. Senator Caledonia? No. Senator Cummings? Yes.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Senator Dewey? Yes. Senator Harding?

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) — time-bound override]: Yes. Senator Harrison?

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Yes.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Senator Hashim?

[Speaker 0]: Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) — time-bound override]: Senator Heffernan? Yea. Senator Ingalls? No. Senator Lyons?

[Sen. Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Yes.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Senator Major?

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Yes. Senator Matos?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Yes. Senator Morley. Yes. Senator Norris. No. Senator Pershing. Yes.

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

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) — time-bound override]: Yes. Senator Ram Hinsdale.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden) — time-bound override]: Yes.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Senator Bahoski.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Those voting yes, 23. Those voting no, six, and we have passed s one ninety. We have on the calendar for action s one ninety three. It was 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 as set forth in the calendar today pass when it is so amended, Affecting the revenue of the state, appropriations. Affecting the appropriations of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) / Reading Clerk]: S one ninety three, an act relating to establishing a forensic facility for certain criminal justice involved persons.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I recognize the senator from Windham, senator Hashim, for the report of the committee.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, mister president. So I tend to avoid over explaining, different legal concepts in other bills that we report out, but for this particular bill, given the context and the complexity, I will be providing an overview of a number of different legal concepts in this, and so that's my foreshadowing that this is going to be a lengthier for the court. So that's 193 proposes to require the Department of Corrections to establish a forensic facility to house and treat certain individuals who need mental health treatment after having been charged with or convicted of certain serious offenses. This bill does not contemplate the construction of any new physical structures. Instead it would require establishing such a facility within a correctional facility or using other locked secured facilities if the court determines less restrictive means are appropriate. The forensic facility created in S-one hundred ninety three would be for persons who cannot be subject to the Department of Mental Health custody under the current system, either because they do not have a qualifying mental illness or because they do not require acute care in a hospital. In such cases, s one ninety three provides that the person could be housed and treated by DOC at the forensic facility. Under current law, there are specific court proceedings that occur in criminal cases when there are issues concerning either the defendant's sanity at the time or the defendant's competency to stand trial for the offense. Although both of these legal issues concern a defendant's mental health, mental health status in connection with a criminal offense, the two concepts are very different. The bill attempts to address both of the issues starting with competency. So competency refers to a defendant's ability to understand the charges and their ability to participate meaningfully in their own defense. In order for criminal hearings to proceed, the defendant must be competent. Under our current system, when a defendant is found not competent and they are being held in the correctional facility, the only recourse is for them to have repeated competency evaluations over and over again. The missing gap is competency restoration and we are one of the last remaining states that does not have a path forward for an individual to regain confidence. The first part of the of this bill addresses that gap. Section one establishes forensic facility procedures for defendants who are found not competent to stand trial, including requiring the competency restoration services be provided at the facility. Under subsection a, defendants shall be transferred to the facility if they have, been found not competent to stand trial, they've been charged with an offense punishable by a life sentence, and are and are either being held without bail, and if they're not being held without bail, if they would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person, get released, and they are not currently hospitalized under the current system for treatment of a dangerous mental illness. When someone is held without bail under title 13 BSA seven five five three, it is for the most serious of offenses, such as murder, aggravated sexual assault, or arson to death death resulting. Those are just a few examples. These changes would not create some sort of broad sweeping policy that would fill our jails, but rather it is narrowly tailored to apply to people who would already otherwise be in jail. And at the at the moment, this would only apply to six individuals in the Department of Correction custody. Subsection b requires that the person, once admitted to the facility, must be evaluated for competency every six months or if the facility's clinical service director determines that the person is likely competent to stand trial, whichever is soon. The person must be provided with competency restoration services while at the facility until either competency is restored or there is a final disposition of the criminal court. The restoration service must be provided according to a plan approved by the clinical services directors must include any appropriate combination of medication, medication, accommodations, rehabilitation or other services identified as necessary or proper to achieve and maintain competency to stand by. Party may request that a second or subsequent evaluation include an opinion on whether the person's competency can be restored. If the court finds by clearing evidence that the person cannot be restored to competency. The court must order continued commitment of the person, taking into account the least restrictive conditions applicable unless the court finds that the release of the person would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. So in that case, the court must release the person under a regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment deemed appropriate by the forensic facility and the court. The court must also order as an explicit condition of release that the person comply with the prescribed care regimen and any other conditions appropriate to protect the public. The burden in this section and in others is particularly high. Over the decades, our Vermont Supreme Court has created high threshold to allow the government to constrain an individual's liberty. It uses clear and convincing evidence as a threshold, which is one step down from the highest threshold known as beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's a phrase that we hear often. The reasonable doubt threshold is required to convict an individual of a crime. Our state's case law has also established that it's not enough for the state to appear in a hearing and just say nothing's changed, therefore, they're still dangerous. They have to prove more than that. Subsection f requires the Department of Corrections commissioner to actively monitor compliance with orders permitting the person's release and to immediately return the person to the facility if there's a reason to believe the person is again not confident and poses a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. If the person is returned to the facility the court must hold a hearing and determine whether the person should be readmitted or if the person can remain released on conditions. Subsection lists the findings the court must make before approving treatment with involuntary medication for a person. The requirements are based on the on the United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Sell versus the United States. Want to note that it would not be the judge themselves making any sort of diagnosis or determination about picking appropriate medication. This would require testimony and evidence from medical experts explaining to the court why a certain medication is appropriate, and then the judge would make that determination based on the testimony and evidence. The burden is on the moving party to ensure the evidence they're presenting is compelling enough for the court to make such a finding. So that concludes section one, which is one of the major components of this entire bill. And I I just wanna emphasize again that without this change, both plaintiffs and defendants will remain disadvantaged. Defendants who fall into this category are unable to exercise their rights, vindicate themselves, or reach a plea agreement. And on the other hand, without this change, the state will be unable to prosecute and resolve the most serious of offense, and victims and their families will be unable to have closure or restitution. Section two of the bill in comparison to the other components is relatively minor it has to do with misdemeanor cases that have remained inactive for long periods of time after the defendant was found not competent to stand trial. So when a person has been found not competent to stand trial for a misdemeanor offense, the charges may be dismissed without prejudice if the case remains inactive for a continuous period of time equal to or greater than the maximum sentence for the offense. I'll just provide a quick example. Disorderly conduct by telephone has a maximum sentence of three months and if somebody is on conditions of release for, let's say, three years and they're regularly going to court, every few months for status conferences and pretrial conferences, and it's been established that they are not competent to stand trial, the case may be dismissed, without prejudice. Section three is, one of the more significant sections of this of s one ninety three. Establishes that the forensic it's such as the forensic facility procedures for persons who were transferred to the forensic facility after being found not guilty by reason of insanity or an offense punishable by a life sentence. So for this section I have to define what not guilty by reason of insanity,

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: what it

[Speaker 0]: means because it can be confusing based on how it's worked. So a person is not guilty by reason of insanity if as a result of a mental illness the person either cannot understand that the conduct is criminal or cannot conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. So all crimes have two core components, known as the mens rea and the actus reus. Mens rea refers to the mental element, and the actus reus refers to the physical act. So that's why when you hear different terms used at the beginning of criminal offenses, such as purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently, those are all different mental states. And the act is raised as whatever the act may have been like driving while impaired or stealing someone's property. So another way to think about it is when somebody is not guilty by reason of insanity, the physical act or the underlying conduct with which they are charged was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, at the time of the offense, the person was legally insane because they could not understand their conduct as a criminal or they were unable to conform their conduct to the requirements under the law. And so when it's characterized as not guilty by reason of insanity, again, it can be it's almost a misnomer. There are a number of other states that use the same phrase, but there are also states that use the phrase guilty by reason of insanity or guilty but not competent, and they all mean the same thing. So after a person has been found not guilty by reason of insanity, then forty eight hours after they're admitted, the court must hold a hearing at which the state's attorney has the burden of establishing a clear and convincing evidence that the person is still suffering from a qualifying condition that upon their release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. The term qualifying condition is defined later in the bill in section four, but I'll just explain it right now. And qualifying condition means any condition whether mental, congenital, or traumatic, however required or developed, or any other circumstance that resulted in the person being determined not competent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity. So if the court finds that the state does not meet its burden, the person must be released and if the state does meet its burden, the court must order the person committed to the forensic facility until the court finds that the person is no longer suffering from a qualifying condition, that would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: If a

[Speaker 0]: per if a person is committed to the facility, subsection d requires the Commissioner of Corrections to provide adequate care and individualized treatment, taking into account the least restrictive conditions applicable. Subsection d also requires a committed person to be promptly examined by qualified personnel in order to provide a proper evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment plan. Subsection E requires that the person must be reevaluated every six months or if the facility's clinical service director certifies that the person is no longer suffering from a qualifying condition that would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. In addition, the person may petition for a reevaluation anytime at least ninety days after the original commitment order. Subsection f requires the commissioner of DOC to actively monitor compliance with orders permitting release of the person and to immediately return the person to the facility if there is reason to believe the person is noncompliant with the order and is creating a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. If the person is returned to the facility, the court must hold a hearing and determine whether the person should be readmitted or they can be released on conditions. Subsection g allows the court to consider victim statements concerning the offense when making a determination. Section four of the bill contains definitions and a few other, more technical provisions. I won't go I won't go over every single definition, but I will hit some of the important ones. The term forensic facility, that's an important one, is defined as a locked facility or placement that the DOC provides with a secure evaluation, treatment, and care of persons involved in the legal system who do not require a hospitalization level of care, and that is required for the custody control, correctional treatment, rehabilitation of the criminal justice involved persons transferred there. This section also describes the confidential nature of the records except for their availability to the parties in the case. It also provides that Vermont Legal Aid shall represent these individuals, which is already a part of their responsibility in other similar cases. It also requires the DOC commissioner to regularly consult with the commissioner of mental health regarding operations. Section five requires the commissioner of corrections to adopt emergency rules and the adoption of permanent rules regarding the forensic facility. Section six provides that the rules of evidence do not apply in competency restoration proceedings or in proceedings for granting or revoking conditional release from a forensic facility, and I want to provide some extra context for this. When the rules of evidence don't apply, it does not mean that there are no rules whatsoever. A judge will still have to look at the evidence and determine if it's relevant or unfairly prejudicial, whether there is an indicia of truthfulness and reliability. The rules of evidence can largely be seen as the guidelines for what evidence can be admitted and published to a jury so that a trial will not be done improperly. Section seven provides that it takes effect on 07/01/2026. We heard from a long list of witnesses. We heard from legislative council, the Department of Mental Health, the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, multiple family members of victims of violent offenses, Disability Rights Vermont, the Department of Corrections, NAD Freedom Advocates, this is an organization that advocates for mental health issues, Agency of Human Services, the Mental Health Law Project from Vermont Legal Aid, the Defender General, the Department of Buildings and General Services, the Attorney General's Office, the Executive Director of the Center for Crime and Victim Services, Chief Medical Officer of the Howard Center, and the Chief Superior Judge of the Vermont Tradition Bureau. The vote in committee was four one zero, and I ask for the senate support.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize senator from Chittenden for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Sen. Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. Committee on appropriations did not find find any, effect on the appropriations of the state, and so we recommend that the bill ought to pass, as presented by judiciary on a vote of six zero one.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: And I now recognize the senator from Chittenden. I understand you have an amendment in the calendar.

[Sen. Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. Yes. This is an amendment that comes from, members of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee and others, including those on, appropriation on institutions. And I believe that institutions will also speak to the amendment, as well. This is a three committee process. We work together on this, and I think deja vu all over again. This is a bill that we had in this chamber last year and looked last session and looked at closely. So there are elements of the bill that will be familiar to folks, as we as the, senator from Windsor has gone through, and then as I will go through with this proposal of amendment. Your Senate health and welfare looked at the bill principally for clinical, how how folks are treated clinically, and what provisions and information is made available, treatment is made available to them when they are in the forensic facility. So it adds provisions to address clinical, components in the forensic facility, such as developing therapeutic trauma informed treatment plans, hiring clinical staff with appropriate credentials, and adopting monitoring and quality assurance protocols. It also requires rulemaking, an interim report while the forensic facility is under development, and an annual report once the facility is established. Our first proposal amendment, replaces section four section four b, and adds a new section. So this is in place of the Senate Judiciary Committee report, section four b. In addition to requiring that Commission of Corrections establish and operate a locked secure forensic facility, The amendment also proposes numerous clinical specifications that the forensic facility must adhere to, and I'll briefly I'll just mention it very briefly. So it must be designed in an, manner that supports a therapeutic recovery oriented trauma informed environment comparable to a community based residential treatment setting while maintaining appropriate safety. Except any person into the facility that, is is, clinically diagnostic has clinical diagnostic prerequisites for that, provide safe housing and management for persons in the in care, and include ability to separate the populations by sex or gender or to address clinical safety or operational needs with the flexibility to operate multiple flex, facilities. Employ a clinical services director to oversee services for these folks, implement staff qualifications and licensure training and so on. And then this is really important so that there's a 20 fourseven oversight and availability of an RN or a licensed physician for, folks who need care. Ensure that persons receive clinically appropriate assessment and treatment planning, including the development of an initial person specific treatment plan within seventy two hours of placement. So once they're transferred to the forensic facility, they'll be evaluated with the 72 and a plan put in place so that they can, and that will be reviewed periodically for clinical to be clinically appropriate. The second instance instance of amendment as a new section, for a to the report. It's a a committee re report, which will come to us in July 29, and the report in the previous section will come to us in July 28. So there is a a stepwise progression toward the development and implementation of the forensic facility with clinically appropriate treatment. So section, the second proposal adds an annual written reporting requirement, and that comes from DOC, from Department of Mental Health, and from the Department from a of Aging and Independent Living, Living to the General Assembly. So that will include the number of persons who are in the facility and the types of clinical services and treatment being provided, because there will be variability in that in that treatment depending on the needs of the person who is placed there. The third instance of amendment adds a new section five pertaining to rulemaking, requires a commissioner of corrections and consultation with the Vermont Department of Health, Department of Mental Health, and Department of Aging and Independent Living to adopt rules and to, to implement the forensic facility, specifically, to provide clinically appropriate standards governing services, including for staffing patterns, ratios, staff qualifications, licensure training, clinical supervision, so on. Provide quality assurance and improvement standards and any other provisions necessary to ensure safe, effective, clinically appropriate implementation of the forensic facility, including potentially requiring forensic facility services providing in a unit separate from other correctional populations. The fourth instance of amendment adds a new section seven requiring an interim report and replaces the effective date, that was in the in the, judiciary committee report, and that effective date is in section eight. The interim report will, be effective 07/01/2026, and that that report report will come to us in October till we can see progress in the development of the facility. And, again, it's in collaboration with the Department of Health, Mental Health, and Department of Aging and Independent Living and must submit that report to us, the status of anticipated timeline for the adoption of rules, forensic planning, including proposed location space considerations and design elements to support therapeutic services and security, a timeline for any facility fit up, initial staffing considerations and timeline for the development of the facility and cost estimates and initial operations. And then section eight, included in that amendment are the, effective dates. Mister President, there are pieces of this that, we had worked on previously. It is a complicated bill. It's complicated because the human condition is complicated as you have heard from the, chair of judiciary. And this is, this will not be a simple a simple process. We did hear from folks, in our Legis Council and Department of Mental Health and, the, Medical Director of Path, a hired contractor to provide health care services, as the facility is put in place. We, we also rested on the or relied on the information that we have carried with us over the years working on this issue. The voting committee was five zero zero, and we ask for your support of this proposed amendment. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Windham.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Thank you Mr. President. I'm going to also speak to the amendment. Thank you. So the forensic facility has been an issue for years as many of you would know. It's critically necessary, complicated legally, and appropriately controversial. We should pay attention when people are held physically against their will and double and triple check that is justified and therapeutic. It's also extremely expensive, especially if you focus on the short term. The institutions committee limited our concerns to the prisons, to the physical prisons, which are overcapacity and understaffed. Our focus was to strike a balance between the physical condition and staffing of the prison and the need for the forensic facility. Prisons as they exist now are not, I want to say not appropriate, they're certainly not ideal, they're not, but they are not appropriate for people who do not understand why they are there, but competency restoration needs to happen and we agree with that. I'm going to speak to the first, third, and fourth instances of the amendment which you've also heard from in more detail by the chair of health and welfare. So in the first instance of amendment, there is a section that the facility be designed and operated in a manner that supports a therapeutic recovery oriented and trauma informed environment comparable to a community based residential treatment setting while maintaining appropriate levels of safety and security. This is not an easy task but it's essential. In the third. Paragraph in that section. It's vitally important to provide for the safe housing and management of persons including the ability to separate the population by sex or gender which is already happening in the in the corrections facilities. And otherwise address clinical safety or operational considerations as appropriate, including the possible operation of multiple facilities. Multiple facilities are in there now because it's likely to be necessary if we want to do this right and folks are already in multiple facilities while we speak. So I'll go to the third instance of the amendment, and that's the rule making. Details matter in this situation. The details that were important to the institution committee, clinically appropriate standards governing the provision of services at the forensic facility, including requirements related to staffing patterns and ratios, staff qualifications, licensure and training, clinical supervision, and the delivery of safe, effective, evidence informed care. Also critical are standards for quality assurance and improvement, clinical oversight, documentation and reporting requirements, safety and risk management protocols, and mechanisms for monitoring compliance. Still in the third instance, it's I very much appreciate, that this amendment includes potentially requiring the provision of a forensic facility services in a unit that is separate from other correctional populations. In the fourth instance of amendment, the interim report, will include forensic facility planning, including the specific proposed location of the forensic facility, space considerations and design elements necessary to support the provision of therapeutic services and security at the proposed location and the timeline for any necessary fit up of the forensic facility and this is where there could be additional expenses required but it's for both the existing individuals, who are in the system already, in the corrections system already, and for the folks who will be receiving competency, restoration, it's just incredibly necessary that we get it right. So, I appreciate the cooperation of the three committees, institutions, heard from Ledge Council, DOC, and many of the other folks who were heard by the other committees, and the vote was a straw poll, that was four to one. Thank you.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Addison.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you. Mister president, may I inquire of the reporter of the amendment?

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The reporters interrogated.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. I appreciate this amendment. It looks familiar. This was a bill that the Senate Health and Welfare Committee worked on extensively two years ago actually and when I was on the committee. My question and I've tried to listen hard to the reporters and haven't quite heard it. Where will this facility be located?

[Sen. Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. That is an ongoing question. I think it's a question more for institutions than for health and welfare, but the the plan is to find a place for this to be, established. There's been a lot of discussion about whether the Berlin facility or whether a section of one of our current correctional, facilities would be appropriate. Currently, these three to five people are held in, community, in the community, with twenty four seven oversight. So this will allow for identification of, an independent

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: building in place. That's helpful, Mr. President, because two years ago, I believe, was supposed to be in the Berlin facility, a wing in that, which is more of a hospital facility, and now it sounds like it's more moving toward a correctional facility which I don't think is as appropriate for this kind of therapeutic facility but it's it sounds like it's not quite settled yet so it could be either of them So I thank the presenter. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Windham. Thank

[Speaker 0]: you. I first just wanted to clarify that the competency restoration and the NGRI components, would apply to about we've we've narrowed it down, significantly compared to past iterations of this. It would apply to about six individuals who are currently in jails, but they're not receiving the competency restoration services that are, being contemplated in the bill. Uh-huh. I just wanted to clarify that piece that there is the possibility though that they that depending on, you know, whatever infinite number of factors or variables could be introduced that somebody could be, committed to a community setting instead. The other piece that I wanted to also address is just is the committee's response to the amendment that was provided. The committee did hear this and and we do appreciate the the work between the committees. This is a bill that crosses between a number of different sectors of government, and it was absolutely necessary for us to do this work with the other committees because it was established back in the seventies that, in order to have this sort of process, the focus has to be on a, therapeutic approach, a rehabilitative approach. You you can't just keep people committed for the sake of keeping them committed, and that's a decision made by the US Supreme Court. It's not just a Vermont not just a Vermont thing. The committee, we heard the amendment and had a straw poll of five zero zero in support.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Essex.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, mister president. The senator from Addison was correct when she's talked about having this bill and amendment type and settings and all of that in 2024. In fact, we did more than that. The late Senator Sears, senator Kesha, senator Lyons, myself, chair Evans, BGS, a whole slew of people at the last hour at the last minute actually did pass out a first, forensic bill, which was gonna cite the building in in Essex and underutilized building that was gonna supply nine beds. The governor signed it, and I really don't understand to this day why we're even here with 193 and all the amendments that come with it. I'm very disappointed that it's taken this long to do this. We had it done once. We'd like to see it done again. Very disappointed to see that we're looking out past 2029 to get to something. When we were first proposing to do this type of bill that was very important to Senator Kesha, She had appropriated $15,000,000 to to us to build a building. We were able to do it when it was all said and done with the agreements of all that that was mentioned for less than $1,000,000 in the in the building in in Essex. I'm disappointed that there are so many victims in in all of this. There's victims that were perpetrated crimes against. There's victims of people who perpetrated those crimes against those people that didn't know what they were doing. And and yet we're still arguing as politicians about what is right and what is wrong. And and all we're doing is building the victim's list as this goes on. I will support one nine three. I'll support this amendment. I'll support everything. I'm just disappointed that it's taken this long when we've already had it done once. And I hope that we can get there sooner than what the dates on this, on all this 01/1993 and the amendments imply. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the report of the committee on judiciary be amended as recommended by senator Lyons and others? 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 report as offered by senator Lyons and others. Question now is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary as amended? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and you've amended the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Nay.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have ordered third reading of s one ninety three. We have on the calendar for action s one ninety eight, an act relating to the regulation and taxation of tobacco products and tobacco substitutes. It was introduced on 01/06/2026, and it was referred to the committee on economic development, which has which reports that it has considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as set forth in the calendar today, and that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the finances of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on finance, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the recommendation of amendment by the committee on economic development be amended as set forth in today's calendar, and when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the appropriations of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations, which reports it has reported the bill without recommendation. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) / Reading Clerk]: S one ninety eight, an act relating to the regulation and taxation of tobacco products and tobacco substitutes.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I recognize the senator from Chittenden, senator Chittenden, for the report of the committee on economic development.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. In the world of Tom Chittenden floor reports, we're looking at a two pager. Alright. So, mister president, this bill left your senate economic development committee about two plus weeks ago to meet crossover. Since then, it has changed. It has been updated and you will see today three committee reports and two floor amendments. During my floor report of the bill as recommended to be amended from Senate Economic Development, I'll refer to amendments that you'll see later on. But if you're following along in the calendar with the bill, the bill recommendation, the amendment recommendation from economic development, just know that there are multiple sections that are gonna be changed in a total of three other amendments that you'll hear about before the end of this discussion. S one ninety eight is legislation designed to protect the health of Vermont's children by modernizing our tobacco laws and addressing the rapid expansion of nontraditional addictive nicotine products. Right now, it costs Vermont $404,000,000 annually to treat tobacco related diseases, including over 93,000,000 in Medicaid costs. With sixteen percent of our high schoolers and over twenty seven percent of our young adults reporting vape use, these costs and the human toll behind them demand this attention to our tobacco regulations. A part of s one ninety eight is the prohibition of deceptive devices. We have seen a surge in puff to play or as I call them, play puff products. Vapes designed to look like video games, toys, candies, smartphones, and school supplies. These products make tobacco fun, which leads to Vermont youth hooked on nicotine, hooked on nicotine, while remaining undetectable to parents and teachers. Under section ten thirteen, this bill makes it illegal to sell products that are designed to appeal primarily to minors or to conceal their nature as tobacco substitutes. This bill also shifts how we handle youth possession of tobacco products. Our youth suffering from nicotine addiction need help, not a criminal record. So S-one 198 reduces penalties against youth for simple possession or use of tobacco. We want kids to seek help to quit without the fear of getting in trouble. However, you will see an adjustment to this with a floor amendment that will still penalize youth who misrepresent their age using a fake ID to attempt to purchase these products. This bill also very importantly modernizes our retail environment. Vermont is somewhat of an outlier in that we are current that we currently couple alcohol and tobacco retail licenses together into one application. This bill would decouple these licenses to be separate applications, which is the predominant way other states do it. As part of this decoupling, we are standardizing the fee retailers have to pay to sell tobacco products. Note that this amount is changed in the finance amendment, which I'll be reporting on right after this walkthrough. The number you see in the Senate Economic Development Housing and General Affairs amendment was mostly a placeholder for Senate Finance to duly consider this fee discussion. Additionally, this bill proposes to modernize and strengthen the penalties for tobacco sales infractions. For those who sell without a license or sell to minors, the penalties are increased in this bill. A first time offense for selling to someone 21 would rise from 100 to $1,000 but you're going to see that amended, you're going to see that changed in one of the floor amendments as well. And also with the five strikes rules leading to ultimately a license revocation. So there will be a change to that that I'll speak to as well when that amendment comes before you. Finally, s one ninety eight streamlines how we track these products. By moving wholesale licensure to the Department of Liquor and Lottery, which was a request from the administration, we should be able to better track online sales and ensure state taxes are being paid. Furthermore, section 11 directs a study into a stamp like program for tobacco substitutes and explore ways to disincentivize high nicotine concentrations by differentiating tax rates. So I don't know how many smokers we have in the room here, but I'll say this, if you buy a pack of cigarettes, you see that tax stamp, that's something that the state of Vermont tax department does. And so we were interested in looking at something similar for vape products. It's just a whole nother discussion. And so we are asking for a report back as to how that could be done and also looking at other states and what they're they're wrestling with the same thing. So this is a report on how to do a stamp like program on vaping products. Alright. So this bill I did do that. This bill directs the revenue from these from these fees and penalties back to the Tobacco Trust Fund for cessation of prevention efforts, which you will see the the butcher of appropriate I mean, the chair of appropriations.

[Speaker 0]: Working on

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: that all weekend. And his fellow butchers I mean, other members of appropriations. I asked if that was within

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: the concordance of the rules to be able to use this, The Secretary said it was okay.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: So I believe the Senate appropriation members will be coming forward with an amendment to strip this, as well as other sections from the bill. So now for section by section, since this is a large bill, I think it's worth going walking through. In section one, section 10 a sub chapter 10 o one, it's in chapter 40 and, seven BSA. It amends definitions of tobacco products to include expanding definition of tobacco substitutes to specifically include nicotine pouches and other nicotine products to address various ways to consume tobacco and nicotine. And 10 o two sub chapter sub chapter decouples, that's what I mentioned, the licenses from tobacco retailers from, licenses from liquor retailers, and it adjusts the annual fees paid to a municipality for this license, to sell a product. So in this segda, you see a thousand dollars that was a placeholder value. You're gonna see a subsequent amendment that puts this at a $150 and $75 for the add on, which is, an inflation adjusted number from the last time this was set, which was in 2016. So if you look at what we set it at 2016, which we assume there was some rational amount for that number being put forward for a retailer to have

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: to pay to be

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: able to sell tobacco products, this is just adjusting for what, inflation approximately would bring that to today. More on that in the coming amendment. Change it also changes penalties for selling without a license from a misdemeanor with fines of up to $200 for a first offense and up to $500 for each subsequent events to penalties up to $2,000 for a first offense and up to $5,000 for each subsequent offense. That's what you see in the segment amendment, but there's an adjustment to the first offense that you'll also see an amendment I'll be bringing forward near the end of this. That's just have the first offense be, I believe at $150 with reasons that I'll tell you when we get to there. And I want to recognize that a lot of senators have raised concerns with this bill and I do feel like it's been getting better as it's gone along. So smooth seat ever made for a skilled sailor, a smooth bill never made for a better bill. So this thing's getting really good.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: All All right.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: So 10/25, wholesale licenses moves the wholesale dealer licensure provisions in the state and the tax statutes to the Department of Liquor Lottery. Again, as a recommendation from the tax department and the Department of Liquor Lottery, and that would start regulating beginning 07/01/2027 instead of the Department of Taxes. There's a strong rationale to move it to DLL. They just have the infrastructure already in place to monitor and check-in on retail establishments, whereas Department of Taxes doesn't necessarily do that, So it's a rational move. And it also increases the penalties for wholesaler dealers selling without a license from up to $25 for the first offense to up to $2,000 for first offense and up to $5,000 for subsequent offenses. Section ten oh five is prohibitions and penalties on minors purchase use and possession. Purchase use and possession also known as PUP clause. Okay repeals prohibitions and penalties on purchase use and possession tobacco products, tobacco substitutes and tobacco paraphernalia for a person under 20 years of age. But again, the floor amendment you'll see will be restoring back one of the sections regarding the use of a fake ID. So we're bringing back something that was stripped in the that was proposed to be repealed in the Senate Economic Development Original Committee report. 10/2007, furnishing product tobacco products to minors, it increases penalties for selling or furnishing tobacco products, tobacco subsidies, tobacco paraphernalia, think I already spoke to that. Again, the the offense, the offense amounts you can see in the bill, the change that you'll see in a subsequent amendment is just on the first fence. Substitute chapter ten oh nine contraband and seizure. It adds tobacco substitutes to contraband and seizure provisions, requires the violator to pay for destruction of seized items in compliance with state hazardous waste rules and specifies that fines are applied per item seized. Internet sales, so subchapter ten ten specifies that only wholesale dealers, not retail dealers, may receive tobacco products, tobacco substitutes, tobacco paraphernalia ordered online. Subchapter ten thirteen is deceptive tobacco products and tobacco substitutes. It adds a new subsection prohibiting anyone from marketing, distributing or selling a tobacco product or tobacco substitute by making it look like another type of product, including foods and food brands commonly marketed to minors, school supplies and portable devices like smartphones, video games, and concealing the nature of tobacco and product substitutes. In your committee, your Senate Economic Development Committee, we had lots of props, actual things that were brought in. Was really quite shocking to see what is being sold out there as their vape device that are intentionally meant to be concealed. Told we can't bring props otherwise it would have brought some and passed them all around to visualize this, but I do have a handout that I can give out if we need to if you'd like to

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: get an idea of what these things look like.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Section, 10 o four, subchapter 10 o four, the next section that was butchered I mean, cut by these new these these senate appropriations committee is, the use of funds from licensing fees, penalties, and settlements. The underlying recommendation from economic development would specify that these penalties and settlements would go into the tobacco trust fund. This according to the appropriations process has been stripped from the bill. I'll let them speak to that as well as section two and section three in entirety and those have to do with the Attorney General's complex litigation special fund. This too has been cut from the bill in a subsequent amendment. I will gloss over it for now but happy to answer questions if you have it. The chapter three is again with the tobacco trust fund. Section four is confidentially confidentiality of tax records. This allows the commissioner of taxes to disclose a tax return tax return information to DLL for the purposes of enforcing investigating potential violations of tobacco laws. So just necessary language in order to shift the responsibility to another department. Section five has definitions for tobacco tax chapter. It amends, the definition of a cigarette to mirror the definition of Title 33 and the master settlement agreement with tobacco manufacturers and also updates definition of other tobacco products to reflect changes to the definition of tobacco substitutes. Section six through nine are really conforming changes all related to the transfer of licensing authority to the wholesalers, so I'm going to gloss over those. Section 10 is also been cut by Senate Appropriations members, and you'll see that soon. And it has to do with a new investigator position in the DLL to enforce and investigate potential violations of Vermont laws and online sales of alcohol and tobacco products. So that's certainly something that many advocates in the Attorney General's office and otherwise saw a need for. There was a differing testimony on that topic, and so I think this will just be part of that broader discussion that happens within appropriations. Section 11 has to do with the taxation of tobacco substitutes. That's that report I mentioned previously, and then you have effective dates. Your Senate Finance Committee heard from 20 witnesses. Since it's getting close to lunch, I will not read them all. Happy to answer any questions about them during any interrogations. And the voting committee was four one zero, and we ask the Senate to concur. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Don't get too much rest, Senator. I now recognize the senator from Chittenden, senator Chittenden, for the report of the committee on finance.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Notice the fiscal note went got really thin after appropriations. Got it. But I will just glow I will focus on the sorry. It's a joke. We got

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: some laughs.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Alright. So what I'm gonna focus on are the impacts to revenues. So the primary impact of this bill results from proposed changes to tobacco licensing. It requires all tobacco licensures to pay licensing fees and increasing those fees and cost of tobacco substitute endorsements would increase revenues for the liquor control fund. And at the table, it's effectively we're currently taking in about $31,500 with these inflation adjustments. The estimates from our very talented and nonpartisan joint fiscal offices brings that to $156,000 which is a difference of about $124,500 again because we're splitting the alcohol and the tobacco licenses. So part of the increase in revenues is that we're enough to get both licenses. This bill would also per request from the DLL Commissioner Knight, this bill would also move the wholesaler dealer licensure from the Department of Taxes to the Department of Liquor Library, liquor lottery, and require the annual fee of $12.45 dollars which is what I understand the tax department could do and it's in line with current liquor licenses. So it's a parody language and the wholesaler dealer license fee is currently free, but based on current number of wholesaler dealers in Vermont, this fee would raise approximately $50,000 in additional revenue to the Liquor Control Enterprise Fund. And finally, the bill would make numerous changes to fines and penalties for violations of tobacco laws, flow to the general fund, but JFO does not estimate the fiscal impact of changes to fines and penalties. Your Senate Finance Committee voted five one one to move this, bill forward, mister president, and we would encourage this senate to concur.

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

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Your committee on appropriations reviewed this bill, and we reported it out on a vote of three two two without recommendation.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on economic development be amended as recommended by the committee on finance? 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 committee on economics bill further as offered by the committee on finance. Question now is, shall the senate oh, I believe we have amendments. Correct? Amendments, senator from Washington.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Question. The the committee voted to go without without recommendation and we learned that we were not able to both amend and vote it out without recommendations. So that's why we're doing it separately. So you'll see the the members of Senate Appropriations that were present this day are all signed on to this amendment and this is our typical appropriations amendment where we're taking out any impact to the general fund until we can do the whole budget, what those are. So there's four instances of amendment. The first one strikes out the section 40 or ten fourteen which is on page twelve seventy three. This is the section that the senator from Shenzhen Southwest mentioned where they're taking funds that would normally go to the general fund after going to the complex litigation fund or the liquor and lottery enterprise fund or the other fund, which I'm trying to remember right now. Let's go to that page. Twelve seventy three four. Litigation fund, liquor and lottery lottery enterprise fund, or the judicial bureau, or where where some of these funds go now. And then after they need they take what they need for their administration, it goes to the general fund. And then the general fund, we could appropriate it to different things as we see fit. This does an end around around that to the general fund and just has it all go to the fund, which is a valuable purpose for cessation work. But we wanted to consider that with all the other needs that we have to stay instead of having automatically go there. We can decide if we want it from the general fund appropriate it for those cessation efforts individually instead of making it automatic. So related to that first amendment, the second and third amendments are similar. The second deletes section two and three, which are just further implementing that arrangement, where instead of going to the complex litigation fund, it goes to the tobacco trust fund and specifically says in the trust fund that these funds from these other sources would go directly to the tobacco trust fund after the administrative costs. So we just strike those sections two and three. The third section as Senator Perchindler Scott Beck with mentioned is the section about an investigator position in liquor and lottery. So we struck this out so we could consider that in the budget. It'll be on our list to consider the cost of that position so that we just struck out that whole section 10 that creates the position. And then the fourth instance of amendment is a technical correction that deals with the effective dates section on page twelve seventy eight. There's there's a fourth subsection of the effective dates that wasn't needed because the date of that report is in the section 10. So they said section 10 was deleted. That is out there. And so we only need three. So we had to change where we have semicolon in the word end. So those are our four instances of amendment, again, without malice or prejudice to the value of where this money is going, but we wanted to have that consideration as part of our full budget analysis. Thank you.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the recommendation of amendment of the committee on economic development as amended be amend be further amended as recommended by the senate by senator Perchlik and others. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it, and you have further amended the report of the committee on economic development. The question now is, are there more amendments? Senator from Chittenden.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. There is another amendment that is in the calendar, So you're welcome to walk along. I did refer to this in the floor report. It has affected three instances of amendment, two of which I already spoke to. The last one is just some conforming language that was brought to the Leg Council, but they speak two things that were mentioned. So your first instance of amendment is basically restoring back the, consequence, if a a under 21 year old were to present a fake ID, which I'm being told are incredibly easy and cheap to get. So, I'm hearing for a $100, you can order one online. So I'm asking my 13 year old to try to get one, just to see how easy it is,

[Speaker 0]: and we'll see how it works.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Don't think he's gonna use it. So this is if you do present that, there will still now be a consequence of a to a $100, which if my 13 year old were to do such a thing I would want him to have to come up with $100 for such a labor disregard of the law and then or provide up to ten hours of community service. And then the second instance is also restoring back. Yeah, in a way restoring back but also changing the first offense for a retailer. Multiple stories in both Senate Finance and the hallways and presented to Senate Economic Development is the way this currently works is the clerk could be fined the $1,000 So if you're a underage, you know, 18 year old working at a grocery store as a cashier or clerk or whatever age, $1,000 on that individual, if they forget to check for ID, if they whatever the look for the ID and don't do it right just seemed very very steep so that was the argument was persuasive that a first offense is still going to be made aware to the retailer and bringing that back down to a moderate amount that I understand in practice as much as it's assessed to the person, the cashier clerk, it is common practice from testimony I heard that the retail establishment would pay the fine. Regardless, it can still be quite daunting to hear about a $1,000 fine if you made a mistake in a in a early job so this restores back the first penalty to to be a $150 the subsequent penalties would still be. Those increases we spoke about And then the third instance, again, this is clarifying language from Legis Council, and I think it's because we restored back just one of the violations and not necessarily all of them.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Hope I got that right.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Your senate economic development committee did support this by a straw poll of five zero zero, and we would encourage the senate to concur. The

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: question is oh, senator from Washington.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. I'd like to thank the, Committee on Economic Development for this amendment. You can call it a parent thing, but when the bill came to finance, this is not in finance's jurisdiction, but the thought that there is a law, but if you break the law, nothing bad will happen to you. And the argument was, well, something bad happens, it deters you from getting help with your addiction. But it doesn't deter you from buying that first pack that might cause your addiction. And at the same time, so you've got a 20 year old, six foot three, three hundred pounds, lifts weights in his off time, he got a full beard, and he goes in and buys a couple packs of cigarettes. He walks out. The inspector's in the parking lot and says, can I see your ID? And he says, oh, you're underage. Too bad. There's no penalty. But then he goes in, and you've got a 16 year old clerk who may be working alone in the corner store, and we're gonna throw the book at that 16 year old clerk for making a decision or being afraid not to make the decision. And it just did not make rational sense. And I think I've been struggling for years to understand what woke meant. And I finally decided that this was woke. I'm not sure still what it is, but it just doesn't seem to work with reality. So I thank the committee for making sure that there is consequence and probably a consequence that is relative to the offense involved.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Grand Isle. Thank you, mister president. I could just say ditto and get it over with, but, I would like to thank the committee for hearing my concerns on the, the fines to a 16 year old clerk that may be caught up in a in a sting, as was mentioned earlier. And, I, they incorporated that into the amendment, and I do appreciate it. Are you ready for the question?

[Sen. Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Mister president, are we on

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

[Sen. Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Are we we're on the amendment that's being proposed.

[Speaker 0]: We

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: are on the amendment proposed by senator Chittenden and Brock.

[Sen. Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Speaker 0]: The

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: question is, shall the recommendation of amendment of the committee on economic development as amended be further amended as recommended by senator Chittenden and Brock. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we have further amended the bill. The question now is, are there any further amendments? Question now is, shall the senate amend the bill as recommended by the committee on economic development as amended? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Windsor.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Windsor)]: I rise in support of s one ninety three as I've shared with my colleagues before. My mother began smoking at age 12. She was offered a cigarette at Central Park for free as a 12 year old. And while the tactics of the tobacco industry are less obvious than that now, they're still choosing to target children. She developed asthma and COPD, both conditions caused exclusively by her cigarette use and smoking, the toll of those combined diseases have inevitably shortened her life. We have taken many trips to the emergency room to address her shortness of breath, and she now lives with an oxygen machine. If you have ever been unable to breathe, where you have felt the tightening, dizzying feeling of being unable to properly convert to oxygen, to have it convert to oxygen in your lungs, You know the panic, the fear, and how you are unable to communicate that you are in distress. That suffering, I exclusively put at the feet of tobacco corporations. She suffers from a cough that will never go away. The tobacco industry targets children,

[Speaker 0]: as

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Windsor)]: I described earlier in her own situation and as we heard from the senator from Chittenden. While I would have personally preferred an even stronger bill, I would I will still be voting for this bill. We are often told that to reduce tobacco use to limit that choice would be a limit on our freedom of choice. But once you are trapped in addiction, often started at a young age, there is no longer a choice. You are locked into a consistent payment, oftentimes targeting low income people to pay out on a daily or weekly or monthly basis to purchase tobacco, and the long term effects and costs on our health care system are in the millions. We know that the personal toll on families is great, and we know that we should not be stigmatizing those who choose to smoke, but rather to stigmatize the companies and retailers who profit off of that suffering. I will be voting yes today, and I support this bill, and I hope that it prevents any person at age 12 or age 13 from being trapped in the cycle of addiction, and that we support further measures to reduce smoking of young people in our state. Thank you.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, Mr. President. May I inquire of the presenter of s one ninety eight? I'm wondering if the committee took any testimony on or gave any consideration to treating underage tobacco use like we do underage drinking with the option of diversion and treatment if one is caught.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: I don't recall any extensive testimony to that regard I would highlight that the one that we're restoring if they present a fake ID does still have ten hours community service as an alternative to the $100, but I don't think that addresses your question.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: I think the presenter.

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

[Sen. Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. May I inquire of the reporter of the bill?

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The reporters interrogated.

[Sen. Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you. I'm interested in the tax stamp section, mister president. And, as you were looking at as the the committee looked at this section, we know that there are tax stamps currently on tobacco products to down indicate nicotine concentration. Was there any testimony about the, nicotine concentration in vape liquids?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: So there there was some testimony on these concerns and ultimately it was a put to report because there seemed to be lack clarity as to what they would be. What they also are doing nationwide on the length duration and then if I may pass this handout out, I was expecting some questions on on this aspect. And what I have here is a slide deck showing you some of these vaping devices. And right now, this is a wild wild west of unregulated space where these devices have a variety of, I wanna say some of them have like a booster. So even if you wanted the concentration to be a certain amount, if the device isn't regulated to not give like a triple boost or a shot boost, there's a lot of lack of clarity on it. So in the committee discussions, there was a lot of concerns about using the stamp piece and additionally, with the types of devices that are so various, there wasn't enough consistency. I'll take one. Thank you. So I don't know if that answers the Senator's question, Mr. President, but I will say it ultimately led to the committee wanting a report, but that chamber that we have no control over, certainly welcome additional testimony or consideration on this very topic.

[Sen. Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. Actually, was wondering if any of the members of the vape industry, had indicated that they have measured and report measurements or label any of their products with the actual amount of nicotine included in their products?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: I don't know the answer to that, mister president. Happy to either take a short recess to review my notes, or I could get the answer for third reading.

[Sen. Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Third reading would be terrific. The the other question is regarding, the stamp versus some new way of identifying anything above five milligrams of nicotine in the product. What what is the difference between those two? What is the new process? Is that something in development, and will it be more expensive? Will it supplant the tax process?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: So we saw pretty interesting video showing how currently cigarettes are stamped and it's a pretty comprehensive device that's automated through a variety of robotic controls and for lack of a better term They open the cartons up, fly the tax stamp and then move it along. When you look at this handout, these come in so many different varieties of packaging, it's so unregulated. A big biggest concern or question would be how do you get the stamp to a fix in a consistent manner and how do you also, we only have one stamp right now if I'm not mistaken for cigarette packs that is to the senator's previous question, we need stamp variations based on these vape constructs and what their limits are. So your committee again, I don't don't think we raced it out of committee, but we had to meet that crossover deadline. So in this in this space right here, we just didn't have enough comfort level with how we could do this tax stamping nor had any other states really tackled it well enough to see as a model, and it seems to be a a growing area of interest.

[Sen. Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. Thank you. Just a a comment here that, whether it's tobacco or vaping, it's the amount of nicotine, and, of course, tobacco has other products that in the smoke that cause problems that can cause emphysema or other lung or other, cancer. This is not not great. Understood. Vaping is, an area where is there's total lack of regulation in the amount of nicotine that's include included in those products. We know that when kids pick up vape, and they do, we heard from our commissioner of health and our committee about kids, middle school kids who are vaping. We hear from our school folks all the time about the behavioral changes that occur when kids vape nicotine. They're they're jumpy. They can't stay in class. They have to run around. They have to seek another vape. The key here for us is knowing how much nicotine is in there. And as the committee has done, economic development has done and others have included an opportunity to restrict access to those vape products and to restrict the marketing of things that are very kid, attractive. Oh, is it mister president understood. This is, this comment came up just before crossover. It's important to move it along, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that it's the level of nicotine that is going to cause permanent neurodevelopmental changes in children's brains. This isn't about adults right here. This is about what happens with kids. And so the the the condition that's in here, the provision in here on stamping is pretty critical. So it will be incumbent on the manufacturers of these products to tell us how much nicotine is in there. And if it's above five milligrams, you get a stamp that's a little higher cost, or you're gonna stamp with a lower cost. That's the way the bill was originally introduced. I think we we need to understand it's not tobacco isn't the isn't the problem. It's the nicotine and that's within vapes that kids are accessing and becoming addicted to and then moving on to other things. So I will end that now from the health and welfare perspective. We didn't we didn't spend time on this bill nor was it our jurisdiction to do that. But I do thank the senate economic development for taking some time to understand the issues. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: May I inquire the the the presenter of the underlying Reporters interrogated.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Did anybody bring up any issues about underage cannabis use during this process?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Mister president, we had two bills. So we had the, what I call the wacky tobacco bill and then the tobacco bill. So I believe that happened in the wacky bill, but not necessarily in the context of this just tobacco bill. So, mister president, yes. But I think that was confined to the other bill that we passed out of the senate last week.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. So the other, one more question, probably in his capacity is finance on the finance committee, if I may.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: You may.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Anybody have a question about how much commerce is actually gonna be driven out of the state by this bill?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: So, mister president, if I understand the question correctly, that would be if with the original amount that came from senate economic development, the placeholder amount of a thousand dollars, yes, that was a large reason why we we recalibrated, and the Euro Senate Finance Committee adjusted it to be what it currently is with an inflation adjuster. Because I would say, I'm guilty of this, I don't like tobacco, I don't like nicotine and I'd like to make it harder to find it. So I did say in committee and this got me in a little bit of trouble, that I would be fully supportive of a thousand dollars to be able to sell tobacco because I don't want tobacco with me personally. I don't want tobacco available at 750 stores in Vermont. I just think it's too easy. It's all over the place. But I recognize that, I don't wanna impose my values and I like to be realistic and there are people that still do tobacco and it is declining in use, least the the smoke smoke tobacco. So to answer your question, mister president, that the senator raised, yes, that was raised that if it had stayed at a thousand dollars, a lot of retailers would just stop selling it and then that would push the sales to the neighboring states. Recognizing that we don't want to punish the small guys the retailers. Personally am completely fine with still advancing this bill at a $150 which is the same amount of currently is because I still think we're making progress by splitting it from the alcohol bundle. And so that's what other states do do and now it'll make it easier for stores too if they don't want to. And if I could just continue, President, I know I'm talking a lot, but I remember Senator Mazza, I always like to mention, he always wanted to stop selling cigarettes in his store. He's like, I'd stop selling them if I could, but he had a liquor store as part of his store, so I think he got the same license and he could sell both of them for the same price. So he just kept selling them, but I remember him talking multiple times that he would love to just stop selling the cigarettes and he was waiting for that moment. I think this bill will make it a little bit easier for the dick mazes out there to say, you know what, I'm just not selling tobacco.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. I thank the presenter of the bill. And I've I've been voting no for this bill, and partly because of the hypocrisy of this the members of this body that voted to legalize cannabis. Because eventually, I think probably not in the too far future, we're gonna be coming after the cannabis growers and the cannabis companies that allow miners to use cannabis. Thank you, miss President.

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

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you. The senator from Rutland has hit on the tension that our committee addresses with many of our jurisdictions. We are responsible for consumer protection and we're also responsible for economic development. And this bill in many ways incorporates some of those tensions. We also are cognizant of the impact of a product not only on individuals' health, and I will remind the body that we have an alarming growth of nicotine addiction in young people 18. That is alarming. And the big alarming thing all of us care about and the most important bill we pass every year is our budget. Senator from Chittenden Southeast already mentioned $4.00 $4,000,000 a year impact on our public purse. So you've got balancing economic development, you have balancing health, and you have balancing our budget. It is, it is an interesting juggling act. I appreciate the senator from South Chittenden Southeast, the senior senator mentioning the study. We have never taxed anything by concentration before. So there are two parts to this study. One is looking at the twenty first century review of a stamp act. I mean, remember, this is a seventeenth century concept stamp acts. Remember? We went to war over this in the American Revolution. We haven't changed that technology really since the seventeenth century. It's time for us to update how we mark those packages, and it's time for us to look at how we tax by concentrate, which we have not been able to do and no one has done. So this is a study, very important study to both look at how we can we can mark products that have been reviewed and how we actually tax according to concentration. So thank you all for your concerns. Welcome to the world of Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is shall the Senate amend the bill as recommended by the Committee on Economic Development as amended? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you've amended the bill as recommended by the Committee on Economic Development as amended. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you've ordered third reading of s one ninety eight. We have on the calendar for action s two fourteen, an act relating to the provisions of pre kindergarten education in geographically isolated school districts. It was introduced to the Senate on 01/07/2026. It was referred to the Committee on Education, which reports it is 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. Affecting the revenues of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on finance, which reports it is considered the bill, and that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the Committee on Education. Affecting the appropriations of the state, it was then referred to the Committee on Appropriations, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the Committee on Education. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate) / Reading Clerk]: S two fourteen an act relating to the provision of pre kindergarten education in geographically isolated school districts.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the second reading of the bill. I recognize the senator from Addison, senator Heffernan for the committee on education.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. A long awaited and highly anticipated bill two fourteen. This address changes some of the Vermont's most rural area communities and kindergarten world. For families in the Northeast Kingdom geography can limit access to early childhood education. In several towns, especially Essex County, the nearest high quality pre kindergarten program may actually be just across the border in New Hampshire. Current policy can make it difficult for the school districts to partner with those nearby programs even when they are the most reasonable option for the family. I want to note that it already exists for K through 12 to go to New Hampshire for most of the NEK. Two fourteen provides a common sense solution. It allows geographically isolated Vermont school districts to pay tuition for above for approved Pre K programs across the state line when those programs are closest in most excess accessible option. This is targeted step that recognizes the realities of rural Vermont. Children in the Northeast Kingdom deserve the same access to early learning opportunities as children anywhere else in the state. This will affect about four families in the Northeast Kingdom if anybody was interested in that and also want to note that the committee asked if this was an issue anywhere else around the borders of Vermont it is not and so two fourteen will help make this possible for any K to get pre Ginny garden education. We received testimony from not very long list for you. First the senator response to it Kesha Ram Hinsdale, our great legal counsel Elizabeth St. James, Janet McLaughlin Deputy Commissioner of Children Development Division, Emily Simpson, General Counsel of Agency of Education and Erin Roche, Vermont Department of First Children's Finance and then Sharon Inglewood, School Board Member from MEK who is a very big help. We took a vote. It was voted out of committee six to zero.

[Speaker 0]: We

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: ask the chamber to concur. Thank you, president.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Oh, now I recognize the senator from Caledonia, senator Beck, for the report of the committee on finance.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: Thank you, mister president. Your senate finance committee took a look at this bill. We heard from senior fiscal analyst at the Vermont at the Joint Fiscal Office determined that the cost to the education fund could be up to $50,000 to allow for these kids to access pre kindergarten across the river. I'm loath to use the word de minimis but $50,000 on 2,500,000,000.0 is not very much. And your finance committee voted five zero two that the bill ought to pass. Thank you.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I now recognize the senator from Grand Isle, senator Brennan, for the report of the committee on appropriations. Thank you, mister president. Senate appropriations reviewed s two fourteen and had the same conclusion that the finance committee had that it had a very, I'll use the word de minimis effect on the education, fund beginning in 2028. And on a vote of five zero two, we recommend passage. The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on education? 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 Education. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You've ordered third reading of s two fourteen. That completes the orders of the day. Senator from Chittenden.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president, and I thank the senate. That is the end of our crossover surge. We now have a clean calendar. We'll have a few days of that, and then we'll begin to get the trickle of house bills that will become a torrent in a month, but fantastic work over the last week or so. With that said, Mr. President, I would move that the senate stand in adjournment until 1PM Wednesday, 04/01/2027.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any announcements? Senator from Windsor, I believe. Was the first.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Senator, the Senate Economic Development Housing and General Affairs will meet at 11:30, and if you're wanting to release the tension of crossover, I encourage you, because this is dealt with in our OPR bill coming up, I'd encourage you to come and get a five minute chair massage in the cafeteria, between four and 05:30 today. There are cookies as well. Thank you.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Windham.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Senator Disher will be five minutes after the call together.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Essex.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, Mr. President. Finally. Senator Agriculture will meet at 11:30.

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

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Senator Natural Resources and Energy will meet at 11:30.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Lamoille.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Transportation will meet at 11:30 if we could be shut. We're really late.

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

[Sen. Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Senate health and welfare will meet at 11:30.

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

[Sen. Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Government operations living at 01:15.

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

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Thank Mister president, the senate finance will meet at 01:15.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: There any senator from Bennington.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Bennington) — time-bound override]: Mister president, the education team will meet at 01:15.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Windham.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Thank you. Senate institutions will meet at one.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, the senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate stand in adjournment until 1PM, Wednesday, 04/01/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it. We'll stand in adjournment until 1PM, Wednesday, 04/01/2026.

Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

Senate Session - 2026-03-31 - 9:30AM

Meetings

Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip

Meetings

Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip

Share