Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia District)]: To give her all my rubber bands.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex District)]: See you. I can't.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The senate please come to order. We'll take a moment of silence and move with devotional. Thank you. Are there any announcements? Have a committee of conference announcement on h nine fifty one. Senator Perchlik, Senator Lyons, and Senator Westman. We have h six thirty five introduced by representative Hedrick. It passed the am I in the wrong place? Oh, this one's rule 31. Alright. Seems someone shuffled my scripts. Fees. H six thirty five under rule 31 affecting the revenue of the state will be referred to the committee on appropes. No. Finance. I said fees, revenue. Fees. Got it. H six fifty seven affecting the revenues of the state under rule 31 will be referred to the committee on finance. H six sixty affecting the appropriations of the state will be referred to the committee on appropriations. We have JRH 10 joint resolution authorizing the Green Mountain State Green Mountain Girls State Education Program to use the state house offered by representative boss Lynn of Westminster. It will be placed on that oh, gotta read it first time. Let's see. Why do I have that right?

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Chair h 10. Joint resolution authoring the authorizing the 2026 Green Mountain Girls State Educational Program to use the State House.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the first reading, and it will be placed on the action calendar. We have h nine zero two introduced by representative Booten of Barrie City and others. It passed the house on 04/30/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H nine zero two, an act relating to approval of amendments to the charter of the city of Barrie.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the first reading, and it is referred to the committee on government operations. Whoop. Oh, it does say that right on my script. Thank you. Now the bill's been read the first time and having failed to meet the crossover deadline, it is referred to the committee on rules per rule 44. Orders of the day. I

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: think he wanted to do

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: third reading. Is that what

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: we got?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We have h nine thirty three for third reading. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White (Windsor District)]: Thank you, mister president. I'm I see in the count I just wanna make sure in the calendar, I'm struggling to locate it. It looks like I'm third in the calendar for list of amendment, but I wanna make sure that I'm standing and making sure my amendment is known.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We we take them it it the floor is yours, senator. We take them as they come. So the

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Well, I don't wanna,

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White (Windsor District)]: I don't wanna preempt others. So I'm gonna keep going and do my amendment.

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

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White (Windsor District)]: Okay. So on page nineteen thirty nine, your humble senator from Windsor offers you an additional change to the prior amendment you saw yesterday. This is in attempt or pursuit to provide the difference between the 75% to 80% split that I proposed yesterday for local option tax and pilot funds to continue that conversation and also take into account feedback from Senate Finance and from those on the floor. So what the amendment you see in your calendar today does is it flips the paradigm that we talked yesterday from towns receiving the eightytwenty split if we hit $18,000,000 into perpetuity. Instead, they only get the eightytwenty split, that 5%, somewhat as a bonus during years that we hit that $18,000,000 surplus as written. So that is the amendment, and I don't think that I should be the one to report the finance vote, but I'll just say I was really thankful for the work that finance did and the vote that came out.

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

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. Did look at this one. With that provision and and with the the cushion at the bottom, we feel more comfortable in supporting this. There is still concern that because we've got two two groups, as we said yesterday. We've got the towns with local auction taxes that are paying in it was yeah. 30, then we went to 25 last year. Now this would gave this this fund would keep 20%. But that money that is retained by the state has been used to pay the sometimes the same, frequently other towns that have state owned property that does not pay them. The example we got yesterday was Johnson. Those towns get their property, We pay them their property tax, but it is based on the insurance value that started because how do you put a value on the state house most of that other property is done on resale value, market value. And it is adjusted by the CLA, which is negatively impacting many of these towns. They did not because the fund was self capitalizing. It wasn't until 2024 that the fund had enough money to fully pay the towns and there's been no movement to backfill. So the vote in committee was four three to support, but I think we will be taking further, you know, do a a further study into those other towns, and then there are towns that have nothing. And, I think there should be some current concern about them as well.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate proposal of amendment be amended as offered by senator White? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. I just wanted to thank the senator from Windsor for her additional work on this. Thank the committee for doing what we always expect our committees to do, which is look thoughtfully at something and provide us with a clear recommendation. And in light of that, I will be honoring my promise to the senator yesterday and voting in favor of this amendment. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Question is, shall the senate proposal of amendment be amended as offered by senator White? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. No. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and we have amended h nine thirty three as offered by senator White. Are there any further amendments? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. There is an amendment in your calendar beginning on page nineteen twenty seven, but I will be offering a substitute amendment. However, all of the language of the substitute amendment that is being passed out is also found in your calendar beginning on page nineteen twenty seven because the substitute amendment simply removes language from the amendment.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator, it doesn't need to be offered as a substitute amendment. The other amendment is considered not offered. So this is your amendment.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Great. Perfect. I was simply telling people where they can follow along before it was in front of them, but I appreciate the clarification. What you see in front of you is on paper now the amendment. I want to start by saying over 80% of Vermonters support a warfare taxation system that asks our wealthiest Vermonters to pay their fair share, And I also support this, but that is not what's in front of me. What is in front of you is actually more of a shift. So people may know that under HR one, some of our wealthiest Vermonters are receiving huge tax cuts from the federal government. And what this bill largely seeks to do is to bring those tax cuts into the Vermont budget. So it doesn't really ask people to pay more. It asks them to pay what they previously paid to the federal government into our state budget instead. There is a bit of a there is also some tax on investment income, could be classified as a bit of a wealth tax. All of that said, what this bill sets to do is to apply an income or this amendment, an income tax surcharge. There would be a 6% surcharge added to the top 1% of Vermont earners, which is people with incomes over $500,000 That income category on average is set to see about a $57,000 increase in what they are not paying to the federal government per filer. And that's a lot of money. The next aspect of the bill sets a surcharge for the next 5% of earners at 2%. So it is a smaller surcharge on that next 5%. So surcharges are applying to roughly the top 6% with a 6% surcharge on the top 1% and a 2% surcharge on the next 5%. And those are incomes between $250,000 per person to 499099¢. And that is the reason that I separated this out is recognizing that those folks receiving that 50 that average $57,000 reduction in their federal tax obligation in that $500 more category are in a category kind of of their own. But the people in that next 5%, that February to 04/1999 might have also received cuts to their federal subsidies for health care so that some of their costs may increase. So we're seeking in that top 1% to recapture 100% of what would have been paid to the federal government to put in our Vermont budget coffers. In that next 5%, we are seeking to recapture 10% of what the average increase in refund would be in order to acknowledge that some of in some of those instances in households, there may be additional costs because of some of the changes at the federal level. All in all, we did not I did not seek in this amendment, and I keep calling it a bill because it's also a bill on the wall. I did not seek in this amendment to make anyone pay more. In fact, in some instances, people will still be paying paying less. What I sought to do is bring the windfall from the federal tax cuts to put into our coffers, knowing that we're having such a difficult budget year and we the state of Vermont too are seeing federal money dry up and we're having to cover things that historically we wouldn't have covered. The next aspect of the bill is a bill, an imposition of an investment proceeds tax. We do these types of sort of unrealized income or capital gains taxes sort of generally, and we do it for a lot of times for people in lower income categories through like their property, their tax on their property value, even though they've never realized the gains of that property gaining worth and value over time. And so this is one aspect that could be considered to be a little bit of a wealth tax and that it is trying to capture some of those capital gains taxes. And what you don't see that was in your calendar and is not here is any of the language around the second homes tax because my understanding is if I want to do something different than what we're doing on that, but I need to do it in the education bill and not in this tax bill. Again, want to remind people that 80% of Vermonters support a warfare taxation system. This is really not a wealth tax. It is maintaining the status quo and simply asking some of our wealthiest Vermonters who have seen windfalls from the federal government to pay what they would have paid to the federal government to us instead so we can maintain basic programs, basic supports and social safety nets for Vermonters who are struggling the most. And I appreciate the Senate Finance Committee for having me in yesterday and letting me know that the second homes tax should be removed from the amendment and brought if if it's going to be brought on to the education bill. And with that, I thank the Senate and the Senate Finance Committee for making time for me yesterday afternoon, and I ask for the Senate support.

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

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. Bill, I guess, was either easier or less easy. Those

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: of us

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: who serve in health and welfare, our committee motto is it's more complicated than that, and I think that is the motto also in finance. The your finance committee actually spent a fair amount of time. At least the first part of this was very similar to a bill that the senator from Chittenden Central brought to us at the beginning of the year. We actually spent several weeks on it, the unearned income tax. And in the end, we failed to get the votes to get it out of committee, again, because we don't know the impact. This and that held yesterday. The second section of this bill is more complicated than that. To start with, I've gotten the same emails about the wealthiest Vermonters got 57,000 in an added tax decrease at the federal level. But what most as we dealt with yesterday, the tax changes in the big beautiful bill were to corporate taxes, and we coupled and uncoupled all kinds of complicated things yesterday. The benefit to income based taxpayers came out of not sunsetting the tax rates that were put in in the Tax Cotton Jobs bill in 2017. And that was extended, but they are not new. They're just an extension of something that was there. So nobody got an additional 57,000 over what they got last year. We made adjustments to the tax code to account for those in, I believe, 2018. I believe we pretty much rewrote the tax code in 2018. So we've accounted for that. The other issue we have, numbers get put out. The top 1%. Well, I'm we we're not sure. We can't document, but I'm pretty sure the top 1% federally, nationally is not the top saying top 1% in Vermont. To the best of my knowledge, we don't have a whole lot of multibillionaires. Aires. I think we're about to get a trillionaire. They aren't living in Vermont. And so and, again, I've said this. My personal concern is $250,000 sounds like a lot of money. But when you're trying to attract professionals to the state and get business leaders to come and develop their business in the state with the potential they could become in that top 500000%. You don't want them to start out saying you're gonna pay the third highest tax rate, and this is a permanent surcharge. So it's really raising the tax rate in perpetuity. It's some surcharges are usually done for specific purpose with a limited time frame. This is a perpetual one. The the second set of putting the surcharges on gave us set more pause. They set up a parallel taxing system because they're based on your your net your federal, yeah, taxable income, not your Vermont taxable income. We add, we subtract, but your Vermont taxable income starts with the federal, and then we adjust it. So if we had to go back to the federal, then the tax department would have to set up a whole new set of forms and filings and computer programming. And to do that without having time to really talk to the tax department to find out what that would cost or what it would do, the committee could not support. We did a straw poll. And with these are seven zero or six one just with the fingers up, fingers down, but it's six one. So we would ask the the body to reject this this amendment with the fact that we do you know, we will be continuing to look at the tax code and try and make sure that it is fair. We understand there is another bill headed our way this year.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Orleans. Mister president, may I ask the report the reporter of the amendment? Presenter is interrogated. Under imposition of Vermont investment proceeds tax, how many people are we talking about in number one, number two, and number three?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: I would have to consult to get the answer. I don't know the exact number of people in those categories.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: How much money would each one generate?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: So I don't have the breakdown in front of me of how much money each of the categories would generate but the bill the package as a whole was estimated to generate a little over $400,000,000 Thank you.

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: Thank you, mister president. I'd also like to interrogate the reporter.

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: I believe, mister president, at least a couple times in the report, a figure of 80% of Vermonters was used expressing a desire for a fairer or more fair tax system. I'm wondering if the reporter could give us more information exactly about what a fairer tax system is and where those numbers came from in terms of the survey.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Yes, absolutely. So a poll was conducted in which 8080.4% of those polled actually what they were polled and asked is, they support a wealth tax? And there are points in times in our country when we had a much more fair system in that we asked wealthier people to pay more into the system, given that they could pay more. But since the 1980s or so, we've shifted further and further away from higher tax rates on higher earners. And so really, that is what what I am referring to when I say something that is when I refer to something being more fair is moving back towards the systems that we saw where higher earners were asked to pay more rather than less into the system.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: Mr. President, I wonder if there's a link to this survey somewhere that we could look at.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: I would be more than happy to send that to the Senate. And that so that was a Vermont specific survey. Harris also conducted a survey of more nationally in November. And what they found was also well over 60% nationally support this type of move. In Vermont, we are higher than that. I haven't looked at the Harris poll quite as recently, but I can send that as well if the senator is interested.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: I thank the senator.

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

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex District)]: Thank you, mister president. Mr. President, we do not have a tax problem in the state. We have a spending. We are losing people at a large scale because of our ability to tax and not restrain our spending. We are $2,000,000,000 over on our budget where we ought to be in the state right now, we never talk about being a little bit more fiscal responsible. We just are talking about taxing people into existence. Mister president, can I read a a email I received yesterday from one of my constituents?

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

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex District)]: Senator Ingalls, do you think you could give me a call sometime tomorrow? I'm trying to find a reason to not shut down my business, sell everything I own, and leave Vermont in the rearview mirror. Unfortunately, that's just one message that I'm getting. I'm getting about four of those a week right now. I'm not getting one every day, but I'm getting about four of those a week from people from all over the state of Vermont that are, just tired of, this this tax that and this ability and tax are rich and all that. And a little tired about hearing about how the federal government shortchanging Vermont. We've never received more dollars from the federal government that we have than we are right now. We're about nearly 40% of our dollars come from the federal government. I've had a a spirited discussion with a very dear friend of mine in this building for a couple days in a row And, very close friend, one of the closest that I have in this building. We've been friends for a long time. And, the comment made by my friend was, well, we're not trying to do it. I and I've said to my you you guys are killing us. You're killing Vermont with your structures of taxes and a lot of the policies that you have. And his comment was, well, we're not doing it maliciously. Well, I believe that, that you're not doing maliciously, but it is killing Vermonters. And so if you don't believe that you're doing maliciously, then then take a look at what you're doing and try to adjust what you're trying to do. And just remember that the people there are a lot people, a lot less wealthy in this state than there are wealthy. Every decision that you make is affecting Vermonters in a in negative impact. When we have raised property taxes nearly 50% in the last five years, when I look at a lot of people in my area, in The kingdom, that are living in rambled down, broken up homes because they can't afford to fix them up, they're living on $1,200 a month. And then you raise your property taxes by 51%. Somewhere, there's cuts being made and, and it's not in a good way for them. I just heard the chair of finance talking about where the, trying to attract people into the state and, and the battles that they have. And I've used this figure before. We just had, some conversations about it yesterday. Our hospital groups, just one of them are trying to attract doctors into the state. NVRH has to have at a barest a minimum to even consider having a doctor come here, a 25% better pay package than anything else, that's the barest minimum. And then they look at, well, okay. Well, but what's the other tax structures? You know, never mind what they're gonna take out of my paychecks and all that. What are the other amounts of fees and taxes that are here? And so it ends up being that for them to attract doctors here that they have to be nearly 35% better to have those people move here. It's not just doctors. It's everyone. We lost 1,800 people out of the state of Vermont. We're losing people like my constituent here. We just need to get past this idea that we could just tax our way out of a problem. You have to be more responsible in life. You can't spend any more than what you can take in. And this thing about just taxing everybody into oblivion is not gonna work. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from 10 Central.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. I just wanna clarify that as this is coming forward, it is a proposal only to tax the top 6% of earners. It raises no taxes, for our lower income individuals, and the intent is actually to funnel that money into supporting our lowest income Vermonters through the social programs. And unlike the two amendments that I brought forward over the last two days that would have cut spending, this actually increases revenue as I think in in both the best way to lift people up is is to work in in both arenas. I just wanted to to clarify that this is not a blanket increase in taxes. Thank you.

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

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia District)]: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a $426,000,000 tax increase, 374 for the people that will pay the income tax surcharge and another 52 for those that find themselves in the I guess what's called the VIP tax and $426,000,000 and I guess the first thing that pops into my mind is for what? I mean, we are the third highest per capita taxes, local and state combined, in the country with a very modest tax base. And I I get the senator from Chittenden's point that this is on a very select group of of people at the top. They probably have more income and more wealth than anybody in this room. But let's just put into context what those people are already paying on the income tax only. The top 1% in the state of Vermont pay 30% of all Vermont income tax right now, current law. The top 20%, and that's a pretty fortunate group too, they pay 80% of all income taxes in the state of Vermont. These numbers are according to Vermont showing fiscal office. The bottom 40% pay less than 1% of all income taxes that Vermont collects on an annual basis. In the bottom 30%, they actually get money back through the income tax filing system. So we can certainly have honest conversations and debate and discussion about whether any class should pay more, but I just wanted to put out there some context of who pays what right now. The top 1% pay 30%. Thankfully, they are here because they are carrying the load. And I think anything that, chases them off or encourages them to maybe put their money into treasuries, which are not taxable would be a detriment to the state of Vermont and to our bottom line. And so I'll be voting no on this amendment and I encourage all other senators

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Addison District)]: to vote no as well.

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

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Roll call.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Roll call has been requested. And when the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. The question is, shall the senate proposal of amendment be amended as offered by senator Vyhovsky, senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden District)]: Mister president, may I interrogate the presenter of

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

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden District)]: Mister president, I I I can understand how 80% of Vermonters would want a tax on the wealthy. And I imagine the details are very important to them. Does this proposed amendment, President, exclude those who are having a one time income event and are not either regular earners of over 250,000 or $500,000 or regular beneficiaries of any tax cuts in that regard?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: It does not, but it would only apply to them in the year that they

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden District)]: earned over the thresholds. I think the senator, Mr. President I didn't plan to speak, because I I have talked with almost all of my constituents who would agree with the statement that we should should make the wealthy pay their fair share. And I would love for additional polling to be done at some point to really understand that line for folks. Because Mr. President, most people would not consider those Vermonters to be wealthy or having a one time income event, like selling their primary residence or taking their retirement. Those folks would also face these surcharges. And what we know from the tax estimates and Public Assets Institute has confirmed this is that over half of our taxpayers who pay these higher amounts are having a one time or once in a decade income event. Mr. President, that is why I have been, very transparent with my constituents that unless we took those payers out, we cannot in good faith say that this is a tax on the wealthiest Vermonters. Right now, many of our seniors are land rich perhaps and cash poor. They are paying high property taxes on the value of a home that they have not yet realized any wealth or gain from. And when they go to sell that house, that's probably what they're going to live off of for the rest of their, retired life. And so, mister president, I have actually received responses from my constituents, you know, many of whom sign letters regularly saying to tax them or tax the wealthy, that acknowledge that if we lost half of the tax revenue because we're not taxing people, who are having a, ongoing high income, then we're actually hurting a lot of Vermonters who are trying to take their one bit of wealth, into their retired years when they have a very fixed income. And with that, mister president, I will be voting no on this amendment.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the questions? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham District)]: Mister president, I have a few clarifying questions, if I may interrogate.

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

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham District)]: Mister president, I'm looking at page two sub section two, subparagraphs a and b regarding undistributed investment income for the taxable year or the dollar amount, which the highest tax bracket against the taxable year. Is this referring to unrealized gains?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: I would have to actually check with legislative counsel to make sure that the language that I understand what exactly the language does. Can I ask for a brief recess?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham District)]: I respond briefly? I I'm I'm going to have a second question. If I may share that before we recess, that may also require that counsel. If we are talking about a trust that includes a property that has one or two rental units in it, and we're talking about the income from the rental units, is that going to be taxed before it is distributed to the landlord or the beneficiary of the trust?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: I appreciate the senator asking their second the second question before the recess because this thought that I might need legislative counsel for both of them was correct.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator, are you done with your questioning?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham District)]: Yes.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We will take a brief recess. Senate, please come to order. Senator from Windham, you have the floor.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham District)]: Thank you, mister president. My questions were answered. I I don't have the the IQ to be able to rephrase everything accurately, but I will say generally that my questions were answered. I do still have some lingering concerns based on what was described earlier by some of the other members, and I will be voting no. So I do hope we revisit this topic for a bit more in-depth work by the committees of jurisdiction. I thank

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: the senator.

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

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. I was not planning on speaking, but I I do wanna say echoing, the senator from Windham that I I'm in favor of this idea, and would like to see, this taken up at another at another time to get, more testimony in committee. Thank you. Oh, but I do plan on voting now.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate proposal amendment be amended as offered by senator Vyhovsky? Are you ready for the question? If so, the secretary shall call the roll. Those voting yes, two. Those voting no, 27. And the amendment has failed. Are there any further amendments prior to third reading? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland District)]: Thank you, mister president. We've got a amendment from the endo. I offer this amendment to eliminate Vermont income tax for individuals 30 beginning in 2028 and establishes legislative intent to support young Vermonters economic development. The first instance of amendment is page one line one through 11. And it'll basically what the what the amendment does, it adds new statutory purpose to 32 VSA section fifty eight thirteen. Establishes that excluding taxpayers under age 30 from income tax is intended to provide financial support to younger Vermonters, recognize reduced earning capacity, and encourage economic development and independence. Second instance, it changes, who pays Vermont income tax, limits income tax liability to individuals aged 30 and under. And the third instance of the of the amendment, sets the effective date for exemption 01/01/2028 and applies to tax years beginning on or after that date. This amendment recognizes a simple truth. Young Vermonters are leaving because they cannot afford to stay here. By removing this income tax burden during their early working years, we give them a reason to build their lives here, buy homes, start businesses, and raise families. This is not just tax policy, it's long term investment in Vermont's future workforce and economic stability. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. The finance committee has not seen this amendment, so I would ask for a short recess so we can meet in that corner and perhaps meet with the council and to make with the amendment.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We will take a brief recess. What are you saying? Will the senate please come to order? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. Finance committee got a chance to look at this. I think it points out why there is the tradition of not doing bill, amendments that haven't been seen by the committee. No one at the joint fiscal office has seen this bill. We have no numbers. There was a number from the tax department, the drafter said, that said it would be 50,000,000, which means we've got people 30 that are making a significant amount of money. Basically, when you're just starting out in this state, you pay a lot less than you do in Massachusetts with their flat tax. I think the what we heard this morning is the lowest 20% pay no taxes. And in fact, most of them are eligible to get earned income tax credits, so we actually give you money back in this state to stay here. So we know the cost of living is high. We know property taxes are high. I would just like to make the point, the legislature does not raise taxes. The voters raise the property not taxes when they vote to spend money on their schools. We merely raise the money, and so we can't just arbitrarily drop those. But I think it's not the income tax that's that's the problem. It it is probably other high cost. Housing is definitely cheaper in the South. We don't need to put in a, foundation. So, the vote in committee was five two to reject the amendment.

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

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia District)]: Thank you, mister president. According to JFO, the last six years, our income tax receipts have increased in the state 60%. Inflation during that same time period is 24%. The delta there is $330,000,000 We have room to give those 30 who we desperately need in this state $50,000,000 of tax relief.

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

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White (Windsor District)]: May I inquire of the presenter of the bill or the

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

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White (Windsor District)]: Thank you. As a 31 year old, I was disappointed to see the number that you chose in your amendment. I'm wondering if you could describe why 30 was chosen.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland District)]: Well, it's basically the foundation of families starting out in the state of Vermont.

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White (Windsor District)]: Thank you. And if I may know the answer to this question based on the previous comment by the of Finance, but do you know the number that would say be reduced in our total tax revenue with this amendment?

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland District)]: The number of dollars?

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White (Windsor District)]: Yes.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland District)]: I believe that what I heard was there was the $25,000,000 for the first year, and each success of the year after that would be 50,000,000 until the population increases, of course. People move here.

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White (Windsor District)]: Okay. I appreciate thank I thank the member for their time. As the youngest member of the senate and the closest to possibly getting, this reduction in taxable income, I appreciate and respect the interest of, the senator. However, I do not feel there is appropriate information to make a decision about the amendment at this time in favor of it.

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

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland District)]: Roll call.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Roll call has been requested and when the vote is taken, shall be by roll. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. If I might ask a clarifying question of the presenter.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: I I'm confused now. Was JFO consulted on this particular amendment? They were not, mister president. Can I ask why, mister president?

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland District)]: I just didn't have time to do it. I just came up with a hit pocket this morning.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: I thank you, mister senator. I'm I'm confused because we're talking now about hundreds of millions of dollars moving by amendment on the floor at third meetings. Obviously, the worst possible way to legislate, but these being followed by roll call votes might give one the impression that this is not about actual legislating, but rather about putting people in an uncomfortable position in an election year. I find it disappointing, mister president, and that's all I'll say. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? If so, the secretary shall call the roll. Senator Baruth? No. Senator Beck? Yes. Senator Benson? Yes. Senator Bongartz? No. Senator Brennan? Senator Brock? No. Senator Chittenden?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex District)]: No.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator Clarkson? No. Senator Caledonia? Yes. Senator Cummings? No. Senator Gulick? No. Yes. Senator North. Yes. Senator Pershing. No. Senator Plunkett. No. Senator Ron Hinsdale. No. Senator No. Senator Wheat? Yes. Senator Weston? Yes. Senator White? Senator Williams? Yes. Senator Brennan? Those voting yes, 11. Those voting no, 16. The amendment has failed. Are there any further amendments prior to third reading? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: Thank you, mister president. May I request a brief recess?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We will take a brief recess. Senate, please come to order. Are there any further amendments prior to third reading? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Addison District)]: Mister president, I was gonna offer an amendment but in light of of, what, senator from Chittenden had to say I am not gonna present that amendment. However, the amendment was gonna be for Social Security and not tax that any longer. But in the interest of what the pro tem said, I'm not gonna offer that amendment. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any further amendments? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Not an amendment, mister president, but I just wanted to acknowledge and thank the senator.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H nine thirty three, an act relating to miscellaneous administrative and policy changes to the tax laws.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. No. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and we have passed h nine thirty three. I assume we're going back to the top of the calendar, sen senator from Chittenden. We have house proposal of amendment s 89 was passed by the house with the proposal of amendment. The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? I recognize the senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. This the house made two fairly small changes to this bill. They added some language to ensure that any payouts from the survivor benefit fund are prospective after the bill passes. They felt that was important to not allow open up the door to anyone who had ever died in the line of duty being able to come forward. We would have no way of knowing how many that would be, and so it makes it clear that anyone who may die in the line of duty after the bill passes are eligible to access the survivor benefit. It also allows the treasurer's office. So you may recall, it applies both if you die in line of duty or if you die due to an illness because of your job. The place that that is most obvious is with firefighters if they were to get cancer because of all the burning poisons that they spend their time in. This because we're expanding that that group of people and it might be more complex in some instances to determine if the illness that someone died of was due to their job. This allows the treasurer's office in instances where they need a medical expert to determine that to use money from the fund to pay for that medical expert. And those are really the only changes in the bill and your senate government operation only substantive changes. There are a couple of rearrangements. Your senate government operations committee on a straw poll voted unanimously to concur with the house.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. We've concurred with the senate with the house proposal of amendment on s 89.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: We

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: have on the calendar for action h five thirty four. Introduced on 01/06/2026, it was referred to the committee on health and welfare, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that it ought to pass in concurrence. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H five thirty four, an act relating to community action agencies.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Washington, senator Cummings, for the report of the committee on health and welfare.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. And I promise I am not saying the word tax or revenue in this bill. This really is a simple little bill. The purpose of the bill is that your community action agencies, In this area, it is Capstone, everyone of yours. They usually there's SEVCA and Brock and their local community action agencies. And they came out of the war on poverty, and the board I was on the board for many years. And the original bylaws when these were formed, the law required that there be term limits for most categories. It's been brought to us that one third of the board has to be made up of elected officials, power and their designee. And what it does is it allows each board shall adopt term limits to govern its members. The reason that cap association came to us with that request is they're having trouble getting board members. And if you have to put someone off and then immediately put them back on or you can't get someone to replace them, So they're just asking for the ability to set their own bylaws on term limits. And since we have the bill, these used to be called community service agencies. They're now called community it's a community action agencies. That's changed. We changed provide it updates the language to modernly correct language. They are not poor people. They are people of limited income or low income. They provide maintaining adequate housing and suitable living. They have access to safe and secure housing. We do not work with the prevention of narcotics addiction, alcoholism, and for the rehabilitation of narcotic addicts and alcoholics. We work with individuals with substance use disorder. And so there is that kind of modernization of the language and the ability for each group to each committee action agency to set their own board term limits. The voting committee was unanimous. We heard from representative noise, who was the reporter, and from Josh Davis, where from Southeastern Vermont Community Action, who was representing the CAP organization, statewide CAP organization. We ask this body to concur.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You've ordered third reading of h We five thirty have on the calendar for action h six forty eight, which was passed by the house on 04/22/2026. It was referred to the committee on finance, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the senate proposed to the house that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page 18 o six of today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the expenditures of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as recommended by the committee on finance. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Page six forty eight, an act relating to banking, insurance, and securities.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I recognize the senator from Addison District for the report of the committee on finance.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: You, mister president, and with apologies. This is a very long bill, and I will try to speak quickly. But if you need to take a break, I totally understand as long as we have a quorum. Okay. Each year, the Department of Financial Regulations proposes a bill to update the statutes in their area to make them more consistent and clear, address any emerging industry changes that have encountered in their role as a regulator, and to ensure Vermont's financial regulations are fair and appropriately protective for Vermonters. This year's bill, H. Six forty eight, focuses on updating banking regulations and also includes some updates for insurance, securities, and miscellaneous provisions. The bill is detailed and lengthy, 88 pages long, as well as a few instances of amendment from your finance committee. I will provide a general overview of the bill in my report, including the instances of amendment by your finance committee, which you can find on page nineteen oh seven of today's calendar. You also got the house version of the bill passed out. If anyone wants to follow along section by section, I'm happy to answer specific questions and bring back more detailed information on third reading if necessary. DFR being Housekeeping Bill. This section one, this section is about applying for various financial licenses with the banking division of DFR, which is the Department of Financial Regulation for those who might not know, such as a lender or mortgage license. It adds that any application for a license or registration shall be under oath or affirmation and removes the unnecessary word partnership to describe a corporation and changes the fee from a registration fee to a licensing fee. It does not increase the fee, it just changes the name of it. Section two adds language. There is also an instance of amendment here changing one of the registrations to licenses. In general, these are licenses. There are a few registrations, but in general we're referring to licenses. And then Section two adds language that when DFR is reviewing whether to grant a banking license, the Commissioner must determine that it is in the public interest to permit the applicant to provide services in the State. It also clarifies the type of corporate entities, makes language gender neutral, and clarifies licensing of consumer litigation funding companies. Section three adds seeking to acquire control to strengthen the standard for when the DFR approval is not required for a money transmitter license to change hands. Making conforming changes to the change in control of a money transmitter license in order to conform to the Money Transmitter Model Act which comes from the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, the national coordinating body for state banks, and it adds references to the commercial lending license. Section four makes minor clarifying changes to the license renewal statute. Section five strengthens the commissioner's authority after application to revoke, suspend, terminate, or non renew banking division licenses, including circumstances such as, of course, felony convictions, a lack of financial condition and responsibility, or failure to demonstrate that the banking the bank demonstrate that the business will be operated honestly, fairly, and efficiently. This seems pretty key. It also adds language that if a license is not renewed, a license may request a reconsideration in writing within fifteen days and receive a response within sixty. The commissioner's decision may be appealed to the Superior Court. Section six clarifies the confidentiality of data collected by DFR. Section seven clarifies the requirements of a consumer litigation funding license for consistency with other licensing language. Section eight clarifies that the annual report requirements apply to companies licensed by DFR rather than registered by DFR. Sections nine, thirteen, and 14 all consolidate definitions related to virtual currency from 100 other parts of

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia District)]: the statute into Section 2,003

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: of the chapter. The definitions sections of Title VIII, Chapter 79 related to money services and clarifies the definition of a money transmission kiosk also consistent with the Money Transmitter Model Act. Just so you know, virtual currency kiosks are the one type of money transfer kiosks or one of the types. Section 10 clarifies language referring to depository institutions by including credit union in addition to other financial institutions. Section 11 makes minor clarifying changes to the Money Transition Kiosk Registration under the Money Transmitter Bottle Act. Virtual currency kiosks are a subset of money transition kiosks. There's a new section added in the amendment from your Finance Committee, section 14a, that extends the moratorium on new virtual currency kiosks. Last year, we made changes to increase the protections to consumers who use virtual currency kiosks, also known as cryptocurrency kiosks, and we included a moratorium on these kiosks, meaning that there couldn't be new kiosks added to the state. Right now, we have only two kiosks around the country. There are emerging concerns and increasing concerns about these types of kiosks and the fraud that can happen with these kiosks. So we're extending the moratorium so that whoever is here in the building next year can take a stronger look at this and whether or not we want to have these at all. Many states are now banning them. But this just extends the moratorium one year. That's in the amendment. Section 15 repeals a broad overarching applicability, a section of the statute in connection with consumer protections because the chapters and sections that follow now expressly say that the entities they apply to. Sections 16 through 21 replace financial institution with regulated entity. The words financial institution are replaced with regulated entity. A regulated entity is a broad inclusive term for an entity licensed or chartered by the DFR banking division and that includes a credit union and other types of institutions overseen by the department. Section 22, which you'll see in the House version of the bill, was struck by your finance committee in our amendment because it was super confusing. Anyway, it struck. Section 23 clarifies the entities related to the payment of interest. Section 24 clarifies that the statutory prohibition on credit discrimination applies to lending institutions. Credit is lending, so that says that lending institutions can't discriminate. Before, it was more broad to financial institutions, but it is really the lending institutions that it's applying to, so it's cleaning that up, making sure that it's clear. As a result, it only applies to companies that are making loans, whether or not they are a Vermont Bank or Credit Union, a licensed lender, or something else. And so that's why it's changed to lending institutions. None of these companies are allowed to discriminate when they make loans. Section 25 defines what an insured depository institution in the context of a home loan escrow account. Section 26 removes an extraneous cross reference. Section 27 clarifies that any basic banking rules only apply to Vermont financial institutions. We can only regulate Vermont financial institutions. We can't regulate federally chartered ones. Section 28 changes depository institution to financial institution for consistency with the other parts of the bill. Section 29 specifies that certain federal laws codified and enforced in the subchapter apply to any person licensed, chartered, or authorized by DFR, not just those licensed by DFR, so it's broadening this out so that DFR has authority over all of those entities or makes clear that they do. They do already, but this makes it clear. Section 30 removes an unnecessary definition of financial institutions. Section 31 also changes financial institution to person in the context of reverse mortgages since non bank lenders may also issue reverse mortgages. Section 34 clarifies that a Vermont financial institution includes special purpose financial institutions. Section 35 reduces the frequency of mandatory meetings required for Vermont financial institutions, mutual or cooperative financial institutions, and Vermont credit unions. Instead of monthly meeting requirements, a governing body may meet less than monthly but at least four times a year, provided that they have an executive committee that meets more frequently. Section 37 addresses financial institutions lending policy. It removes a requirement, this is the section we talk about the most probably, removes a requirement that loans of more than 10% of the institution's capital shall be approved by the majority of the governing body or executive committee. Instead, a financial institution must add to its written loan policy the circumstances under which its governing body would review a loan for approval with the factors requiring this level of review to be determined by the financial institution sort of gets rid of a micromanaging kind of provision And it also changes how loans are made related to borrowers such as partnerships or associations that are grouped together for risk purposes using a 50% capital standard that is based on existing federal guidance from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. This is a new regulation. Prior to that, we had no cap, but the 50% is what is the federal guidance. So we matched what the federal guidance is on partnerships and the percent of capital that they can loan. The language in the section regarding control is taken directly, as I said, from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Section 38 clarifies applicability of various provisions to include credit unions. Section 40 codifies DFR's current interpretation that a joint account holder or co borrower at a credit union does not need to be a credit union member as long as at least one name on the account is a member. Section 42 mirrors a federal and national credit union administration requirement that when two credit unions merge, only the merging credit union, the one that's being dissolved, has to hold a member vote. Previously both needed to, but this puts it in line with the federal law. Section 43 defines financial institution as credit union. So that's the banking section. Okay, we're making progress here. Now onto insurance, this is even more exciting. Section 44 clarifies that a mutual insurance holding company may use the word mutual in its name, which seems kind of weird, but it didn't get to do that before, which had previously only been reserved for mutual insurance. Now it's mutual insurance holding companies can also say that. Section 45 codifies existing electronic filing requirements as is recommended by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Section 46 clarifies that when dependent coverage can be added to a group life insurance plan. Previously, under current law, it's that 75% of employees who have dependents must opt to have this insurance coverage, but employers don't always know who has dependents, So it was one of those things that nobody knew how to calculate it because they didn't have the information. So nobody ever did this. And now it's just, it's saying 75 of employees just in general. So this should hopefully mean that more companies will be able to offer dependent coverage in their life insurance plans. Section 47 adds race, religion, and national origin to the definition of unfair discrimination in insurance underwriting. Previously, the statute only covered sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and marital status, although DFR's interpretation of the statute has always been inclusive of all of these terms, so this is just codifying current practice. Okay. That's the insurance section. On to securities. Mr. President, this is exciting. Securities section 48 makes two changes to the exempt transaction statute, which outlines which transactions are exempt from registration with GFR. First, it revises the de minimis exemption of 25 purchasers down to 10 purchasers, a number more appropriate with Vermont Small Market. 25 purchasers is a lot for us because we're so tiny. So the 25 is usually used for a larger state. Second, changes the new 14 b takes into account that the 25 purchaser de minimis conflicts with Vermont securities regulation as notice filings. Oh my gosh, this is really in the weeds here. It just makes it very it makes it consistent with securities regulation that changed from 25 down to 10. And we did make a small amendment, that can be found in the calendar on this, that was narrowing the language to make it consistent with this change. Section 49 clarifies that investment company fees for notice filings are based on share classes and are nonrefundable. This codifies existing practice. Section 50 removes references unrelated to registration filings and notes that there is a fee for filing a request for exemption. Section 51 fixes the court references of the Superior Court of Washington. Section 52 corrects the typo. Section 53 clarifies existing DFR practice and modifies and then strengthens the penalty provisions to make the factors used to determine civil penalties for securities fraud consistent with the penalties that are in Titles ten and thirty. Section 54 makes clarifications to the Vermont Financial Services Education and Victim Restitution Special Fund and amends a definition about claimants and incorporates a definition of dependent child. So this is just updating definitions to be consistent with the Restitution Assistance Fund Model Act of 2021, which is the federal law. Section 55 removes the duplicate fund from statute. There's right now a financial institution supervision fund and a banking supervision fund. They only use one of those, so they just got rid of one and renamed it to be the financial institution supervision fund. Section 56 removes the insurance regulation and supervision fund, the one I and repeals outdated language about minors married. It used to be that we we we changed the law a few years ago that about minors marrying and so this is just codifying to be consistent. Section 57 moves the insurance fund within title eight to the insurance section and does some other cleanup in there. Section 58 adds a statutory requirement for registered investment advisers to maintain cybersecurity insurance with criteria to be established by the commissioner. In 2016, DFR implemented these cybersecurity requirements, and but this seeks to codify that and updates federal cross references regarding, this area. Section 59, mister president, is the effective date. This all takes effect on 07/01/2026. We heard from all of the witnesses that you would expect, many, many people from all the divisions in the Department of Financial Regulation who, deal with this stuff and who, requested these updates to the DFR statutes. We, of course, heard from our legislative council attorney, and we heard from the Bankers Association and the Association of Credit Unions and everyone was on board with these, this cleanup housekeeping bill. The voting committee, mister president, was seven zero zero. Please ask me a question. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator, you covered it so thoroughly. I doubt there is a question left. Oh my goodness, senator from Windham.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham District)]: Thank you, mister president. I appreciated the

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: senators. Yay.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham District)]: But and it's on the last the second to last page

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Okay.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham District)]: Of the house.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator, from from Windham, yes. I would request that you may wait because we do have one more report from the committee on appropriations. I know it's very exciting to ask the senator from Addison questions. Recognize the senator from Franklin District for the report of the committee on appropriations. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin District) — time‑bound overlap]: Senate appropriations took a look at h six forty eight. There was no fiscal note. It's mostly a regulatory bill with no fiscal impact. And on a vote of six zero one, the committee recommends that the bill ought to pass a concurrence with the proposal of amendment as recommended by the committee of finance. Thank you. Senator from Windham, would you like to continue? Would you like to interrogate this? I I I would. The reporter is interrogated. Thank you.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham District)]: Just a question. If if you can expand more on, if you if the senator could please expand a little bit more on the investment advisor registered required to be, shall maintain adequate insurance for the risk of a cyber security breach. Yeah. I'd be interested to know more.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: So, thank you, Mr. President. This, as I mentioned, was requirement that DFR implemented in the Vermont Securities Regulations, rules in 2016. So this has been in effect for ten years now in the regulations so that registered advisors that are registered with the Department of Financial Regulation have to have cybersecurity insurance. If their technology is hacked or they've had some kind of breach, they have insurance to cover any losses that come about as of that. This has been required by rule for ten years. This is just codifying the rule in statute, codifying existing requirements, to make sure that, it is consistent with the rule and also consistent with federal regulations regarding cybersecurity force, for financial regulation. I thank the senator.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on finance? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. If the ayes have it, you propose to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on finance. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it and you've ordered third reading of h six forty eight. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president, and thanks to the body for a good morning's work into the afternoon. I think it's good if we break off here and pick this up on Tuesday. So with that, mister president, I would move that pending announcement to senate stand in the adjournment until 09:30AM Tuesday, 05/05/2026.

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

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate Finance will meet at 01:00, but since it's five after, I would say we will meet at 01:20 to give you time to get your lunch.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Washington. Senator appropriations will not be meeting today, but the conference committee on the budget is supposed to meet at one. So we will go down to

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: the committee room and see if they're waiting for it.

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland District)]: Thank you, mister president. Sir, government operations will meet at 01:30.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Mister president, the education committee will meet at 01:30.

[Lt. Governor 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 09:30AM, Tuesday, 05/05/2026. Are you ready for the question? So all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it. We'll stand in adjournment until 09:30AM, Tuesday, 05/05/2026.