Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Got it. Yeah. You got it. Okay.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: I'm going to.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Will senate please come to order? We'll observe a moment of silence this morning in lieu of a devotional. Thank you. Please rise and 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 and indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Are there any announcements? Seeing none, we have h nine thirty two being on the calendar for notice and affecting the revenues of the state under rule 31 is referred to the committee finance. H nine forty two being on the calendar for notice and affecting the revenues of the state under rule 31 is referred to the committee on finance. H five fifty seven being on the calendar for notice and carrying an appropriation under rule 31 is referred to the committee on appropriations. Five seventy seven. Yes. Five seventy seven. H five eighty eight being on the calendar for notice and carrying an appropriation under rule 31 is referred to the committee on appropriations. And h six eleven being on the calendar for notice and carrying an appropriation under rule 31 is referred to the committee on appropriations. We now have a joint resolution to take up at this time, j r s 52 joint resolution relating to weekend adjournment on 05/08/2026 offered by the senator from Chittenden Central District, senator Baruth. Listen to the reading of the resolution.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Resolved by the senate and house of representatives that when the two houses adjourn on Friday, 05/08/2026, it'd be to meet again no later than Tuesday, 05/12/2026.

[Lt. Governor 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, and you have adopted the resolution. Orders of the day. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) – President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, mister president. I'm wondering if we could start with the third readings on the second page of the calendar. Two of them h five thirty four and h six forty eight and then move back to the topic.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden Central just likes messing up my scripts. I gotta go. We have h five thirty four for third reading. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Listen to the third reading.

[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)]: Question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, we passed h five thirty four in concurrence. We now have h six forty eight for third reading. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

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

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the third reading, and 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. I'll oppose nay. Ayes have it, and we have passed h six forty eight. We now have s one fifty seven was passed by the house with a proposal of amendment. The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? I recognize the senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. Your senate health and welfare committee reviewed s one fifty seven as it came back to us from the house, and we see that there are some changes that do not affect the underlying intent or or policy within the bill. So if you will look if you can look at two zero six two zero zero six, you'll see that this is a bill about certified recovery resident certified recovery residences for folks with substance use disorder. The, initially in the first part of the bill, language was improved to include substance use disorder, so the definition is used then through, different sections of the bill. There's also within the bill some improvements to definition of unacceptable behavior in the residential agreement that residents sign when they enter a residence. And then the language further on in the bill to ensure that residents who are released or for violating their agreement understand that and also have a a grievance policy in place, should they be exited from the residential, program. There's also reaffirming the language that we had put in that there will be a place for these folks once they leave the, recovery residents so that they'll go to an appropriate, housing environment. And then finally, phrase was added to the rulemaking to include exit and transfer data in the reporting that comes back. Senate Health and Welfare asked the full senate to concur with this proposal. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: 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, and we have concurred in the house proposal of amendment on s one fifty seven. S two thirty nine was passed by the house with a proposal of amendment. The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? I recognize the senator from Chittenden Southeast.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, Mr. President. Senate Health and Welfare also reviewed the changes that came back to us. This is the bill on child abuse and neglect working group. The bill that we sent over, I think, was a good framework and the bill that has come back does have some improvements. The house added change the membership of the working group to make it more effective in reporting child abuse and neglect. They also added made some changes and made additional requirements for the study that's included in the bill. So a coordination of mandatory reporting guidelines and attention to reporting and asking the working group to stay focused on the mandatory reporting process. So, mister president, your, senate health and welfare asked that the full senate concur with the, s two thirty nine as it came back to us from the house. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the questions? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You have concurred in the house proposal of amendment on s two thirty nine. We have on the calendar for action h five fifty nine, which passed the house on 04/24/2026. It was referred to the committee on institutions, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the senate, excuse me, propose to the house that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page twenty fourteen of today's calendar. And that when such proposal of amendment and with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the appropriations of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with the proposal of amendment as recommended by the committee on institutions with further proposal of amendment as found in your calendar today on page twenty eighteen. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H five fifty nine, an act relating to the parole board.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Windsor District for the report of the committee on institutions.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White (Windsor)]: Thank you, mister president. Mister president, this report is h five fifty nine, an act relating to the parole board. When we're talking about parole, we're talking about individuals who have been convicted and sentenced. Parole is a discretionary conditional release from correctional facilities to the community. The parole board is a quasi judicial body that determines whether a person will be released, remain on release, and under what conditions. The board meets frequently about nine times per month to carry out these responsibilities. The chair is salaried, and the members receive a per diem. This bill makes five main changes. It strengthens the training of the board members, updates the board's composition, creates a pilot project for external legal counsel as budget development and reporting requirements, and clarifies victim notification statutes, including the ability to opt out of notifications. The senate amends the senate amendment makes primarily technical and clarifying changes and further clarifies the victim notification provision to ensure consistency in the statute. Mister president, now allow me to go through section by section. Section one, parole board training. This section requires the commissioner of corrections to collaborate with the parole board director and chair to provide annual training to parole board members. The training must be covered by key topics such as mental health disorders, substance use treatment, trauma informed approaches for working with victims and rehabilitation to related serious offenses. Section two, grow board composition and training. This section makes several updates. It replaces two alternate members with two regular members, resulting in seven regular members total, which reflects the current practice without changing the board size. It requires the governor to consult with the board's director and chair when making appointments and consider a balance of relative expertise among members. It also removes outdated references to alternate members and requires board members to attend training annually. It designates the director in collaboration with the chair. Section three, parole board director. This section clarifies the parole board director's responsibility for providing training to the board members and for supporting the overall function of the board. Section four, parole board legal counsel and pilot project. This section establishes a pilot project for fiscal year 2027. It provides the board with external legal counsel. It supports this support will offer both training and legal advice related to hearings. The attorney general's office will coordinate to procure processes in collaboration with the board and the agency of human service services. The pilot will be evaluated during the fiscal year of 2028 and the budget process of 2028. And the parole board director will report back to the legislature by 11/15/2026 with recommendations for future legal support. Section five, carrying forward of funds. This section carries forward $25,000 from the Department of Corrections fiscal year of 2026 budget into fiscal year 2027 for the pilot project. These funds have been previously designated for external legal services, but were not used because of lack of bids. Section six, the appropriation of funds. This section appropriates an additional $50,000 within the Department of Corrections budget to support the pilot project, ensuring efficient resources to its implementation. Section seven, parole board budget submission. This section requires the parole board director to submit proposed budgets during the fiscal year of 2028 and 2029 budget development process. It also requires a report back to the legislature by 12/15/2027, including the recommendation of whether the board should have its own line item item, excuse me, within the Department of Corrections budget. Section eight through 10,

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: victim

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White (Windsor)]: notification. These sections clarify the streamlined statutory language regarding the victim notification parole hearings and decisions. They confirm current practices, and victims may opt out of receiving notifications. They also consolidate the and align provisions across statute, placing the detailed requirements in title 28 and the maintaining of cross reference in title 13. These changes were requested by the Victims Notification Task Force. Section 11, effective date. This section sets the effective date of the bill of July 2026. Mister president, in summary, h five fifty nine strengthens the structure of and support of the parole board, improves training and legal guidance, enhance transparency in budgeting, and clarifies important victim notification provisions. For these reasons, the Committee on Institutions respectfully recommends that the senate adopt this proposal and amendment and pass the bill. The vote on the bill in institutions was five zero zero. Witnesses were Jennifer Pullam Pullam, the executive director of crime victim services, and Mary Jane Ainsworth, the director of Vermont Parole Board. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Richard Westman (Lamoille)]: I'm a little late this morning. I my high school basketball team won the division two state championship this year, and they're in the Governor's Office right now. So I'm a little late. And I'm sorry, they beat Hartford. So the appropriations committee took a look at this. There were a couple of sections. Section six had $50,000 that was appropriated to corrections, and they moved money around there. They also, in section seven, there is a parole board budget and a pilot for the budget that was in section seven. We also had, in section five, we have an amendment, and we struck the section five, and you can find on which page? I have page twenty sixteen. Sorry, I'm going to We have an amendment that changes and there's $25,000 in general fund appropriated to the Department of Corrections for third party legal services in 2025. And that is our amendment from the Appropriations Committee. We voted seven-zero-zero, and we would offer the amendment for the new section five.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the recommendation of proposal of amendment of the committee on institutions be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have amended the recommendation of proposal of amendment of the committee on institutions as recommended by the committee on appropriations. The question now is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on institutions as amended? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on institutions as amended. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of h five fifty nine. We have on the calendar for action h six seventy four. Introduced on 01/14/2026, it was referred to the Committee on Economic Development, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that it ought to pass in concurrence. Affecting the appropriations of the state, the bill was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H six seventy four, an act relating to the creation of the Vermont Sister State Program.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Franklin District, senator Brock, for the report of the committee on economic development.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: The party may remember, just a couple weeks ago, we had a discussion on the floor and about a sister state of Vermont, and that was the Republic Of Ireland. Ireland, as you know, we were very concerned or interested in Ireland as an economic development partner because of the amount of business done between Vermont and Ireland. In looking at the whole issue of sister states, it's kind of a labyrinth when you go into the Vermont legislature because depending upon what you look at, we have sister states, we have partnerships, and we have other forms of contact with other nations. In many cases, they're at the few cases at the national level as with Ireland, but also we have a lot of arrangements between our National Guard and places around the world. Some places that we perhaps have never heard of such as a province in Russia in which there was a and still exists at least on paper a sister state relationship. Sister states include national governments. They include state or local governments or the equivalence thereof elsewhere. And in some cases, they include cities such that we have a city in Senegal. We have a city in Japan. We have a city in France that is in effect a, quote, sister state. This bill is designed to codify the central state program really for the first time and define what it is, how it works, what its intents are. And its intentions in most cases are to develop both a relationship between our peoples, but also to look at economic and cultural connections and how best to employ them and how to formalize them. And this particular bill is designed to do that. And then it also has some mention of doing that with the Ireland program, which we have right now. To look at the sections of the bill section by section, section one of the bill creates the sister state program within the agency of commerce and community development It states that its purpose is to strengthen Vermont's international engagement and to foster mutually beneficial relationships with national and subnational governments abroad. The creation of a board called the sister state commission is made up of nine members, and it includes a variety of people, including the chair of the board of Vermont Council of World Affairs, includes the secretary of the agency of commerce and community development, Vermont adjutant general, the chair of the board of Vermont Arts Council, and three members with expertise in cultural exchange and in higher education. It requires the committee to meet at least quarterly and to produce a report to the general assembly, at the end of each year. I'm really looking forward to that report to see how many other relationships they found, and going back to the statues, in some cases, twenty years and more that we perhaps need to rejuvenate. The bill sets forth the application, the review, and the approval procedures, and, the ACCD, Agency of Commerce and Security Development, initially develops the application process and creates the minimum eligibility standards. The ultimate decision point when the proposal to add a sister state is added, is that of the governor. Each year, the committee must support a submit a report to the general assembly, which will update it on the committee's work during the year, including updates on the program, financial overview, and an outlook for the program next year. Section that's section one. Section two of the bill, amends the Vermont Ireland Trade Commission, which was passed, as you as you recall last year and we discussed this year. Two members are proposed to be added to the to the Vermont Ireland Trade Commission that was separate from the, body we're talking about with with respect to the commission. These include the commissioner for economic development or designee and the president of the University of Vermont. This will make for a total of nine members on the commission. Section goes on to amend reporting and accounting requirements for the commission, and each year, a detailed accounting must be included as part of the report to the general assembly, and it limits or amends the commission's authority to only spend money. It raises on purely administrative expenses, which does not include spending on election activity or food or beverages provided in official committee meetings. The Trade Commission also has to submit a written report to the general assembly on or before 12/01/2029 with the following information summarizing its accomplishments. Includes a detailed analysis of how the commission has served its legislative purposes and accounting on funds raised and gifts received. This would provide the legislature with analysis helpful in deciding whether or not to extend or remove the commission is set to expire at the 2030. The bill, if passed by the the general assembly, would take effect upon passage. In listening to folks about the bill, we heard from the reporter from the other body. We heard from John Buelley, Patrick Enriquez, the National Guard State Partnership Program Director, Steven Evans McClure, the executive director of the Vermont Arts Council, Gregory Knight, who's been adjutant general of the Vermont National Guard, Alison Littenden, a French teacher from Hartford High School, Peter Lynch, the senate committee on committees appointee to the commission, Patricia Preston, the Council on World Affairs, Rick Siegel, legislative council, and Tim Tierney, the director of recruitment and international trade, the agency of commerce and community development. And we recommend, the committee after reviewing that the body approve this bill.

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Mhmm. Go on appropriations committee. Looked over age six seventy four for any appropriations. There is a slight or minus fiscal impact for the sister state committee because there could be two to five members that could get the per diem. That could meet four. That could be two more times, but that that the funds we thought were coming from the general assembly budget would be easily fit in there. Didn't have to add any money to that budget. So we were okay with that. Changes made to the Ireland Commission did not have a fiscal impact. So we supported the passage of the bill favorably on a vote of six zero one.

[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 six seventy four.

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: We

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: have on the calendar for action, h five twelve, introduced on April we call that 2025. It was referred to the committee on economic development, 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 twelve, an act relating to the regulation of the event ticketing market.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Windsor, senator Clarkson, for the report of the committee on economic development.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you very much. You'll be getting copies of the bill, but you're also going to get a copy of the amendment which is integral and essential to the rest of the bill. And so with your permission I'll address the bill and then I will also address the amendment which is important to be incorporated in on second reading. We have had some consumer protection year here in Southern Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs. And this is yet another one of our consumer protection bills. Here's the problem that we are proposing to solve with h five twelve. Deceptive online ticket resale from fake websites to scam tickets to inflated prices are negatively affecting both our Vermont consumers and constituents and Vermont performing arts industry. That is the problem we were trying to solve. H twelve five twelve proposes to enhance consumer protections in the event ticket resale market through improved transparency and the prevention of predatory and deceptive practices in the marketing of resale tickets. This is a bill designed to address market distortion, not the legitimate resale event tickets, and we have a robust legitimate market for that. And importantly, it only regulates tickets sold Vermont tickets sold by Vermont venues. This does not affect tickets that you have bought for the Red Sox or for the Sabres. Yes or for whoever else you are buying tickets on the Buffalo Bills. So during testimony we we have great testimony from over 19 from 19 people during testimony we heard about the real harm that the unregulated event ticket resale market is having on Vermont consumers and our venues. We heard about the deceptive marketing tactics that steal intellectual property from venues, artists, and sports teams to mislead customers into buying tickets into buying from the site of a ticket reseller rather than from the actual venue rather from the legitimate venue and I urge us all as we buy tickets online to make sure you are buying from the legitimate venue. It's often hard to tell the differences is what we found out. This is causing consumers to overpay for their tickets. We heard about consumers purchasing costly invalid tickets due to the speculative ticket due to speculative and scam ticket practices from a Wheelock resident who paid $421 for a Lyle Lovett concert which was which had a face value of $94 at the Paramount to a $50 to $50 being paid for a $15 ticket to the Lake Monsters game and in 2000 just to give you a really good illustration of this challenge in 2023 Vermont fans of the musician Billy Strings paid $65,000 765,780 more dollars than they would have up for all going to scam pockets $9,493.55 dollar tickets were were on average resold for about $89 each. So we are this by solving this problem, we are in a small way helping keep Vermonters and Vermont performing arts experiences more affordable for our Vermont constituents. This is putting real financial pressure on our Vermont venues. They're having to spend more for consumer service, internet and data security. Fans turn to our Vermont venues when something goes wrong so our Vermont businesses must resolve refund or troubleshoot issues caused by spam tickets and third party resellers They're having to find seats for them. They're having to refund them. They're having to do a number of things that are causing real harm. Our Vermont venues are losing thousands of dollars absorbing escalated losses from invalid tickets or overpaid tickets to ensure they maintain customer relationships critically important as we all know in our communities plus money is being funneled out of our Vermont economy if a $100 ticket is resold for $400 that leaves $300 leaves a Vermont household that money does not go to Vermont venues workers local restaurants or surrounding local businesses That $300 is going out of state to a state reseller or national via sale platform. This is economic extraction from Vermonters and from our communities. This is the additional problem in addition to obviously the harm that our constituents are facing. The lack of regulation this market has the lack of regulation in this market has diminished the trust between consumers and venues eroding Vermont's live entertainment and sports market. I've noticed this just with our own family as we go to buy tickets for the World Cup. Everyone is very concerned that you are making making that purchase from a venue that's legitimate. I won't say anything about FIFA, but this is a concern I've observed in my in my own family just in the last couple months. Automated bot sorry. These markets are a crucial part of our economy as you will recall the performing arts industry in Vermont is worth about $1,200,000,000 to our economy and the Vermont and 93,000,000 roughly 93,000,000 of that is for performing for music venues alone. Modern ticket scalping is no longer someone outside a stadium with two tickets and seats to get in its automated bot purchasing bulk acquisitions immediate relisting with prices that are steeply inflated from the face value and speculative listings for tickets that even not even owned by the lister. To that end the bill requires entities that resell or facilitate the resale of tickets to clearly notify the public whether they are purchasing from a secondary tickets reseller. It bans the use of deceptive URLs and the improper use of intellectual property of the venue of or the event. The bill sets a price cap of 10% above the original ticket price. Price caps are crucial part of protecting Vermont consumers and helping the market work effectively for venues. We took our inspiration both from Europe where this is common practice if you've tried to buy a Taylor Swift ticket in Europe all those resales are capped at 10% in England many many countries have this and we took our inspiration locally from Maine who passed this law last year and they're revisiting and reworking it but they they have found it working very effectively price caps regulate markups and discourage abusive resale resale markets that often have no relationship to real demand The price cap does not apply if the secondary reseller has a contract with the original ticket venue. This allows fans to resell tickets if plans change, but it stops extreme markups and disincentivizes large scale speculative resale. Resale caps are becoming a global standard with over 15 country countries having adopted them, and many states are in the process of advancing these as well. Maine is the one close by that's done it, there are probably 15 states just going through this process that we're going through right now. The 10% cap is targeted and measured. It reflects the second the reasonable transaction. It reflects reasonable transaction costs. 10% allows a reseller to cover payment processing platform fees, cover administrative overhead and earn a reasonable margin while removing the incentives to hoard inventory reducing bot driven mass purchases and keeping tickets accessible to ordinary Vermonters. Ticket markets are not normal free markets. Tickets are licensed to attend a specific one time event, which are so important to all of us in our experience in our communities and just our our pleasure in life. They have fixed supply, artificial scarcity created by release timing, extreme information asymmetry, emotional purchasing pressure, and emotional purchasing pressure because supply is fixed and events are are perishable I mean they only happen once resale markets can become really predatory Legislatures historically regulate markets like this that have a fixed supply, high volatility, and consumer vulnerability attached to them. This fits squarely in that category of protecting consumers in that kind of a market. Price caps in narrow markets are not unprecedented as we know states regulate rent increases, utility rates, insurance premiums, prescription drug pricing and payday lending. When markets show repeated consumer harm, legislatures step in, which is what we are doing at this point. A modest 10% resale limit is restrained compared to many regulated industries. This bill is an attempt to bring balance back into the system to restore trust needed for a thriving entertainment industry here in Vermont. I particularly really like to thank me at this point because we really took a lot of our inspiration from Maine. I thought if you'd like to turn the bill I'd also like to end up has our has our amendment been passed out as well great thank you. I'd like to just quickly go through the sections it's a short bill as you will see section one covers all our definitions and you will see one of the things we did in our senate contribution to this bill is that we the definition of reseller has been narrowed to exclude individuals and reset to exclude individuals reselling tickets purchased for personal use. Prohibition on the sale of speculative tickets would still apply to all individuals. So that is section one. We have a couple subsections. First, a ticket issuer must include on the face of the ticket. This is a senate contribution as well. Every ticket must it must the original price must be clear and conspicuous so that the total with the total price of the original ticket. This is important in the resell market because you don't know what you're doing 10% on if you don't know what the original price was. Second, a secondary ticket exchange must provide a statement in a clear and conspicuous manner informing a customer that the customer is purchasing a ticket from a ticket issuer or a ticket reseller and that the resell price of the ticket is limited by the price cap in the bill and third in this subsection it provides that a secondary ticket exchange shall not mislead customers about the availability of tickets often you'll see limited supply going fast or whatever are not allowed to mislead customers about the availability of tickets on that platform or on any other platform subsection c covers the price caps on the resale of markets of tickets. First, a ticket reseller cannot resell a ticket for a price of more than 110% of the cost of the original ticket. Some people had problems with this. I went to the grocers association and said, you know, what would a retailer be happy with in terms of a markup? And they said, well, we normally get 2% to 3%, but we'd be thrilled with 5%. I said, what would you say if you got 10%? They'd said, oh, we'd be ecstatic. So as we look at this, 10% is a good is is a good and fair markup for resale. It is a ticket reseller is defined as a business entity engaged in the sale or resale of tickets and does not include an individual reselling tickets or purchasing for personal use. Second, a secondary ticket exchange shall not authorize for resale on the exchange a ticket for a price greater than a 110% and that is there, you can see that. And subsection d covers the improper use of intellectual property. This subsection would make it unlawful to use deceptive website addresses or imply endorsement or ownership of intellectual property of a venue or artist without explicit written authorization. And it would also be unlawful to state or imply affiliation by using terms such as official without the express written consent of the given venue, team, or artist. And then subsection e, this subsection would prohibit the sale of speculative tickets. Subsection f makes a violation of the new section an unfair and deceptive act in commerce. We set a sunset. Maine had Maine is reviewing and and chain and working on their law, and we felt that the sunset for two years was a good time to review how it's working and so we put a sunset in which the house did not have. So we the senate made the changes that you've heard, We excluded individuals from the market. We added the requirement that the ticket display its original price. We limited the application of the of the section to tickets issued by independent venues located in Vermont. So we limited it just to Vermont tickets and to Vermont venues. And we yes. That's what we that's there's the bill. However, like now I'd like to address the amendment that you have in front of you. After the committee voted the bill out unanimously, it came to our attention that there were two small technical changes were needed because we had in a compromise move excluded venues 3,000 seats or fewer except for large outdoor venues at fairs and nonprofit events like the VSO at Chelbourne or the Champlain Valley Fair, which seats 10,000. We still had not included we had still made we still needed to make another change. It was so we have these two technical changes these two fairly technical changes that you'll see to ensure that Vermont venues are protected by this legislation. It was not the intent of our committee to omit Vermont venues in this legislation. So this amendment corrects those small omissions. The first one make sure ensures that nonprofits are considered independent venues. Many nonprofits do not have as their primary source of revenue their ticket sales. Their ticket sales, they keep try and keep low. And as we have all experienced, Vermont's nonprofit venues event venues play a key role in our state's economy. And this key language in if you look at the amendment in one, the key words are excluding charitable donations so that we make sure that we include our nonprofits in this definition of independent venue, which you will see. And then the second amendment we made, it became clear that many of our sports stadiums, the Lake Monsters seat over 4,000 people so that our restriction of 3,000 needed to be qualified with number c under the second instance of amendment. And this says that the venue is primarily used that it it also in includes venues that are primarily used for collegiate and amateur sports. So this includes our sports venues as well. So we heard from a lot of witnesses. We heard from 19 witnesses, and one of them is very near and dear to one member of our committee and to many of the members of this body, our wonderful singer Noah Khan weighed in, which we, you know, we had over two fifty venues and artists. We had tons of people weighing in on this. But Noah Khan came in person in a video in a video. But and I would just like to quote him, if I may, mister president. In person in a video. I mean, you know, it wasn't me.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Noah Khan says, as an artist, I care very deeply about the fan experience and accessibility of concert tickets. This bill is a critical step in eliminating predatory resale behaviors and offering Vermonters a great solution for exchanging and reselling tickets in a safe marketplace. This bill is a critical step in eliminating predatory resale behaviors and offering Vermonters a great solution for exchanging and reselling tickets in a safe marketplace. Thank you, Noah Khan. This bill protects Vermonters, supports our local economy, and creates fair playing a fair playing field for commerce to thrive and flourish. Our committee vote was five zero zero on both the bill and the amendment, and we ask for the senate support. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is shall the recommendation of amendment of the committee on economic development be amended as recommended by senator Clarkson. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. May I inquire the reporter of

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: So let me just start by saying that I have been contacted by the Paramount Theater in Rutland and asked for my support, and I fully intend to show that support. But I do have just a clarifying question if I could, mister president. The reporter indicated at one point in the report that a Yankee Red Sox game, which could be obtained from an outside source like StubHub, would not be included in the bill. I'm not sure if the current standings were taken into consideration. There'd be much interest in that ticket since you're talking about a first place and a last place team. Or to be more, precise, the Buffalo Bills and the New England Patriots, a ticket might be, does this bill include that situation?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Does this exclude ticket sales outside of the state for venues like the Red Sox, Yankees, like at Fenway Park?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Yes. It does.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Okay. So this is just for in state venues, ticket sales occurring obviously in state?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Correct. Correct.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, miss Carson. Thank you.

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

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Mr. President, just in case a clarification helps. I recently took my kids to UVM to see the Harlem Globetrotters, which is a really fun global or nationwide event that Vermonters very much enjoy. If the Harlem Globetrotters perform in Vermont at one of our venues that has seating under 3,000 or, usually seats for amateur sports, they are covered under this bill. The resale of those tickets would not, go unregulated. It would fall under the regulation of this bill. If the Harlem Globetrotters performed at the, Berkeley Stadium in Brooklyn, that would not fall under the regulation of this bill, mister president.

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

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: One, could mister president, can I just have one more clarifying, question answered by the presenter of the bill, please?

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

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Mister president, does this, stop the scalping of Farmers Night's tickets?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: This is an interesting question as the tickets are free and available to the public.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: I'm I'm I'm hoping this is

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: not an issue for farmers' night.

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

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: You Mr. President. May I interrogate the presenters?

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

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: I understand that individuals it does not affect individuals but how would it affect an individual that constantly buys tickets and tries to sell them on say marketplace constantly?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: That is a good question. Thank you for it. Is one that we are enforcement in this bill is complaint driven. That would have to be monitored. I mean it is monitored. Our consumer protection division of the AG's office is vigilant and watching listservs and all sorts of ways that Vermonters sell things. And so one would hope that that would be noticed and a complaint would be registered with the attorney general's office but it is complaint driven and as in many things we would hope Vermont resell resellers of their individual tickets purchase that they can't use for some unknown reason would either use a resale platform they are able to do that or go back to the original venue and have them resold or sell them at a thoughtful price but they can set their own price but a pattern I would hope would be detected by the AG's office, or by others and that it would be a complaint driven system.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: I thank the presenter and thank you Mr. President.

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

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: May I interrogate the senator?

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

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: Can this did the senator have any testimony in committee about ticket sellers that don't post the amount on the ticket? I'm thinking I go to UVM hockey game, I get the ticket on my phone, there's no price on that ticket.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Yes, from after this bill is passed, it will be required to have the original price on the ticket.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: Okay. And would the senator be able to tell me, is the original price inclusive of the convenience fee that's included in the purchase of that ticket or is it just the amount of the ticket less the convenience fee?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: It should include all relevant additions, taxes, convenience fee, whatever any fee that isn't associated with the ticket and the purchase should be included in the original price on the ticket.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: Thank you and I just have one more I shouldn't have said thank you yet. Did the committee take any testimony on increased instances of reselling at the door by folks maybe with a bogus ticket or whatnot because they can't resell online through a reseller? Because I I think of it when I purchase tickets through a StubHub or Ticketmaster. There's a, you know, coverage that's that's given that it's a real ticket. It'll be covered if this is a fake, and, actually, StubHub will pay your money back. Is there any thought, any testimony that was given to the committee about an increase in in scalping tickets because of this limit, so to speak?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: We are concerned mostly, sadly, we've seen fewer and fewer real people trying to sell their tickets in front of the theater or in front of the stadium. Most of this work is done online. And I, we did not talk about the enforcement of the in person reseller in front of a stadium. We did not talk about that, but I can get you information about that for third reading.

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: Thank you, Senator. And I will just say I appreciate the work of the committee working on this bill to narrow it and protect our local facilities and keeping that money in state is a fantastic effort because I wouldn't want to have to miss a show because of an absorbent ticket price.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: So I appreciate the work of

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: the committee. Thank you. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the recommendation of amendment of the committee on economic development be further amended as recommended by senator Clarkson? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have amended the recommendation of amendment of the committee on economic development. The question now is, shall the senate post to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on economic development? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it and you propose to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on economic development. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of h five twelve.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: We

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: have on the calendar for action h nine forty one, which was passed by the house on 04/01/2026. It was referred to the committee on agriculture, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the senate proposed to the house that the bill be amended as it appears in today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H nine forty one, an act relating to municipal regulation of agriculture.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I recognize the senator from Essex District, senator Ingalls, for the report of the committee on agriculture.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, mister president. The senators might recognize the language of this bill as it is the same language other than some tweaks that the committee did as what we passed in our miscellaneous agricultural bill that was nearly unanimous. Just first some comments. When the Supreme Court struck down the basically the right to really farm in Vermont the way that everyone thought it ought to be, it caused a tremendous amount of pain. And we we look at that situation in the center agriculture as an opportunity to do exactly what we felt the Supreme Court had said. It said that if you think that you have your protections in farming, then you need to say that. You need to do a better job of describing that. And that's what we did in our miscellaneous bill. Then we received the house bill version of it. We basically struck out all the language that they had and inserted this new language, which is again, it's not new to the senate other than a few different changes. So going down through the bill. Section one, findings and intense municipal regulation of agriculture. Since at least 2004 accident resolves number one fifteen, it has been understanding that municipalities have not regulated agriculture including the construction of farm structures that the agency of agriculture regulates through the required agricultural practices rule. If Vermont Supreme Court reversed understanding and held that municipalities may regulate agriculture activity so long as municipalities do not regulate the required agriculture practice rule itself. To avoid unintended consequences of having farms be regulated by both the municipality and the agency of agriculture, the proposal of amendments would restore the understanding that municipalities may not regulate farming or the construction of farm structures, but with some exemptions. These exemptions will recognize that farming livestock requires a certain amount of land and the municipalities can regulate farming livestock or smaller sized parcels. The bill will also protect a person's ability to raise a small backyard poultry flock and to and cultivate their land to grow plants. Section two, amending 24 b s a, section four forty one three with small d, limitations on municipal bylaws. This section would prohibit municipalities regulation of agriculture that's subject to regulation by the agency of agriculture required agriculture practice rules with some exceptions. This section would permit the this body regulation of raising, feeding, managing or livestock on a farm that is less than one continuous acre even if there is other farming activities that are subject to the wrap rules. This section would pro would prohibit municipality regulation of raising, feeding, or managing livestock on farms of one to four continuous acres only when the secretary of agriculture makes a determination that the farm has a sufficient land base for appropriate nutrient and waste management before the farm would be subject to the wrap rules. This section would permit some municipality regulation of swine based in designated downtown and village centers regardless of the size of the parcel. This section further prohibits municipal municipalities from regulating cultivating land for growing plants. The specific sorry, my contacts are a little dry. This specific exception excludes cannabis. Cannabis is separately regulated in title seven. Cannabis does by reference have a similar protections for municipalities regulation of agriculture and other farming practices subject to the wrap rules. Regarding a small backyard, a poultry flock excluding rooster would also be something that could not be regulated. Section three, amending the regular required agriculture practice rules, wrap rules for the agriculture non point source pollution control program. The section amends the threshold criteria for farming activities to be subject to the RAP rules and therefore exempt from regulation by the of municipality bylaws. Meeting meeting any one of the criteria would make farming activity subject to the RAP rules. Generally, the RAP rules regulate water quality and other farming standards on farms and requires farmers to adopt practices to mitigate adverse impacts to water. This these criteria include farming activities that generate $2,000 in farm income, involves a certain amount of animals on a farm of at least four continuous acres or involves growing and harvesting crops on a farm at least four continuous acres. The section changes the wrap rules to conform to the statute to so that farming livestock on less than one continuous acre is subject to the municipal regulations even if other farming activities are subject to the wraps. This section also also changes the wraps to conform to the statute so that farming livestock on one to four continuous acres must have a sufficient land base for appropriate nutrient and waste management as determined by the secretary of agriculture before it's subject to the RAP rules and therefore, exempt from municipal regulations. Growing and harvesting for sales crops on a farm that has at least four continuous acres as another criteria to make a farm subject to the RAP rules. This section would amend the criteria this criteria to also encompass farm crops for donations to charitable organizations. Mister president, farming in the state of Vermont is nearly $13,000,000,000, and and I think the last count as far as to what it employs is better than 50,000 people. It is the cornerstone of really why people come to the state. People don't come to the state unbelievably to see, solar panels and windmills and all of that. They come to the state to see, great scenic views provided by the people that are working the lands in the state of Vermont. It'd be a terrible thing for, farming and, and the practices that go along with it to be regulated to the point to where, it would cause, disruption to the value of what, Vermont farmers, do with this, do for this state. This, passed our committee five zero. We, had lots of testimony from the farm groups, rural Vermont, the novice, the farm bureaus, anybody that would be associated with agriculture, the agency of agriculture in itself, and we would ask for this body support.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate post to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on agriculture? Senator oh, yes. We do have one amendment, senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president, and thank you to the committee for working to try and find the balance between urban and rural farming. I continue to feel strongly that we must support our farms and that farming in downtowns and urban areas is fundamentally different than farming in large rural areas. This amendment is a couple of changes. I the first, is a bit of a little bit more regulation allowable in our downtowns, historic downtowns, village centers, and census tracts with a population density of 800 people per square mile or more. This would allow the regulation of livestock. It would not allow the regulation of plants. It would not allow the regulation of small backyard poultry flocks, although the next instance of amendment does define what that is. Currently, as you may recall, a few weeks back on the miscellaneous agriculture bill, I raised this concern with a different amendment and have since worked to try to fine tune how we do this. Currently, for many years, the city of Burlington has had a prohibition on having emus or camels, because I think we can all agree that having emus or camels in Downtown Burlington might not be a great idea. And in the research for this amendment, I have come to learn that emus are very large, not very friendly, and excellent escape artists. And as the current bill H-nine 41 coming out of Senate AG would prohibit having IMUs in downtown right around Church Street, but would not prohibit it in parts of the Hill section or the new North End, and I think we can probably agree that having an emu farm in the hill section of Burlington may be a bad idea. This prohibition on emus and camels, as I said, has been up there for quite a while, but as this is moving forward, it would prohibit Burlington from prohibiting emus and camels. So this is a slight expansion on the ability of the most densely populated areas to have some say in what livestock is allowed in those areas. It is not a requirement that the municipalities do that, and it doesn't even apply to the entire municipality, it applies only to those historic centers and the census tract in which there are living more than 800 people per square mile. The second instance of amendment, as I said, does define what a backyard poultry flock concern with having no definition for this is that it is setting up our municipalities for lawsuits. If I believe that my 12 birds is a small backyard poultry flock and my regulations say that I can only have six, I may choose to sue. And part of my thought process behind this is because of my district. All of the towns in my district allow small backyard poultry flocks. None of them have the same number that they constitute that as. I believe in Northern it's 10, in Winooski it is six, in Essex it is four. So I could see a situation where someone in Essex says, Oh, well my friend in Burlington can have 10, I'm gonna sue the town because I want 10. Or someone in Burlington says, My neighbor's 10 chickens are annoying me and they only allow four in Essex, I'm going sue the town. And so I thought that a definition here was useful. And so the definition defines a small backyard poultry flock as not more than six birds, which doesn't mean that the town couldn't allow more than that, but they would be able to regulate beyond that. And the last definition or the last change is actually just aligning the language in this bill with what we did in the miscellaneous ag bill, which was to raise that threshold for what you can sell to be considered a farm from 2,000 to 5,000. When I spoke to legislative council and asked what would happen because of that misalignment with what we did in miscellaneous ag and what this is doing is that whichever bill passed first would actually get struck out by the bill that passed second. So if miscellaneous Ag passes first, it would raise it to 5,000 and then if this passes afterwards, it would drop it back to 2,000. So this is just an alignment with what we did in miscellaneous agriculture. I unfortunately was not invited to present this to the committee, I haven't had a chance to do. I did send it to them last week and I hope that the body can see the reason and logic and balance here in trying to ensure that farms across the state of Vermont can operate and do the work that they do while also recognizing that in our densest, most urban areas, some practices and some livestock just may not make sense, and it may make sense to allow in those areas for a municipality to think about what makes sense for their time. Thank you so much.

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

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: The committee did get this laid after we passed the bill out or thereabout. Here's here's the problem that I have, mister president. We have been working on this bill in some form since the beginning of this year. VLTC has been in one time and not since crossover. And unfortunately, this bill isn't small changes. It strips away all the committee's work that they've done. The vast majority of those committee works done. And I had laid out the the thought prop or more than the thought process, the what farming means to this to this state. So to come on a floor amendment to strip out all this committee's work that we've been here for nearly twenty weeks on and we've worked really, really hard on on this field to find that balance. Is it the way that legislation ought to be done? This this is a significant wrecking of all the work that we've done. I will have a message to the LCP. You wanna impact legislation because you are a proud organization. I don't think there's anybody in this building, anybody in this room certainly, especially if you've been involved with town government that hasn't relied on that proud tradition of their helpfulness. But something's changed, mister president, in this year's, session in this building. This, guerrilla warfare tactic of not coming into committees and, advocating for what you believe is strong and what is right and for all of your members, has ended. I know there was another committee last week that had the same thing. If VLTT, if you want your work considered, please, please, please be the proud tradition people that you are because you've helped all of us. But get back to your hard work, come into committees, advocate for what you want, and we will listen, especially with the agriculture committee that we have. We will listen. I would urge the body to strike this amendment down. There has been ample opportunities to come in, regardless of what was just said, to come in and advocate for what was, important, for anybody's constituents, and we would ask, that the, that the senate not concur with this amendment. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you, mister president. May I just inquire of the reporter of the bill, please?

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

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you. I am just curious. Many of our towns obviously have ordinances already in place. I assume that this wouldn't prohibit those ordinances from I mean, for example, we have where I live, we don't allow roosters anymore in in the village center because of the noise. This doesn't prohibit those ordinances which are already in place. Is that correct?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: I would have to ask as far as, ledge counsel. Just give me, mister president, thirty seconds. Be making sure of that. I just wanna be sure. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Will the

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: senate please come to order?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: I just I wanted to be sure I was I thought I knew the answer of it, but I do not at a critical time wanna say something that's not correct. Roosters are not permitted anyways. And as long as those towns that have those ordinance in place aren't bumping up against the RAP rules, which you would have known by now that you would have been because it would have been said about, yes, those ordinance that are in place are not going to be affected by this passing of this bill.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: President. And I also want to say that we did do a straw poll within our committee and our committee was five zero zero about supporting this amendment.

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you. Can I inquire the presenter of the bill?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The presenter of the amendment or the bill? The bill. The senator from Essex interrogated.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Hey, mister president. I was just wondering about the second and third. I understand the first instance of amendment by the committee would would feel strongly about that one. I wondered about this definition. I thought maybe that was a point well taken that we have this different definition. Or for the third amendment the point that this is different than the other bill. I didn't know if the committee had a preference that they wanted to be $2,000 or they if there's another method to correct that issue that if this bill passes.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: We had I I think the committee, mister president, would be fine with either the two or the five. A lot of that is just going back and forth between, you know, trying to satisfy some of the farm advocates is everybody signed up on the five and this is one last chance to get it down to the back down to the 2,000. I don't think it's going to matter to this committee or to be honest, not matter to any part of how farm is regulated in the state, whether it was the 2,000 or the 5,000.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: And mister president, the definition of the six birds, did that you have an opinion on

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: on that? We potentially, mister president, kept the a very vague about a a small flock knowing that there was a lot of communities out there that already had their own regulations in place. So they we didn't wanna wait into that and say, well, and cause a lot of confusion about, you know, what was there. I think it gets down, mister president, about what's manageable. Who's complaining? What's causing the what's causing the harm within in the so, yeah, it may seem like an a little bit vague as far as where the number lies, but again, there's a lot of communities that have, put that number in place already. We didn't want to conflict with any of them.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you. I thank the senator. Thank you.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) – President Pro Tempore]: One quick question for the reporter of the bill,

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

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: The reporter

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) – President Pro Tempore]: I I think I understood the senator to say that there was a straw vote five zero zero against the amendment.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Is Yes, that Mr. President. Yep, it was.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) – President Pro Tempore]: Thank you.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: We felt, Mr. President, we felt that for anybody, this bill has been around, it's kind of signature piece of what we've done in agriculture. And we've just felt, and we've been open to it. We have invited people in. We have just said, come on in and we are very, very proud of the work that we've done. We, as the Senator from Rutland has said, Mr. President, the senior senator, this is landmark legislation to protect farming in Vermont. We're very proud of the work that we did. We are very thoughtful work. Thank you.

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

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

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

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Bill. I very much appreciate the work that you have done and obviously a a very challenging balance. I'm concerned that the committee has done. I'm concerned about making changes that will impact municipalities in ways that we might not be aware of. So I'd like to understand, just follow-up on the last question that, about municipalities and about existing ordinances. And what I heard was that if it related to the wrap that that would that they would have known all already. I questioned that. And, so I'd like to know if the committee took more or took testimony from folks other than VLCT and that when VLCT did provide testimony, what that testimony included?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Yeah. VLTC has said to us all along that they were happy with our language. They've said it in committee. We thank them for their participation when they were first in there at the beginning of the year. We haven't seen them since after crossover. So all along, they have been very thoughtful as far as, you know, how they did it. They've we've we've seen them in the cafeteria. We've seen them in the hallways. You know, we were surprised to hear that, you know, that they would be putting forth an amendment such as this. But yeah, as long as those communities aren't bumping against up against the required practices, agricultural practices. Yeah. They're they're gonna be fine. And so this isn't new language as far as only two that were put in statute. This is how farming was before the Supreme Court made their made their decision. And so we're just basically going back to where where it was codifying the language.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: I think the

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: reporter. Thank you.

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

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Hi. Just wanted to make a quick clarification in that VLCT did not work with me on this language. This was language people may recall that I previously tried to do something similar using tier one a and tier one b, and what we sort of determined was it was a little too expansive and a little too squishy as to what that would apply to, which is why I worked instead to use the census tracts, are very clearly defined by the US Census Bureau. You can find them on a map. I'm happy to provide people with a map of the few areas that this would apply to. That said VLCT did send an email out yesterday saying that they support this amendment and that it gets them closer to what they're hoping to do.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the proposal of amendment of the committee on agriculture be amended as recommended by senator Vyhovsky? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. No. The nays appear to have it. The nays do have it, and the amendment has failed. The question now is, shall the senate post to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on agriculture? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you propose to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on agriculture. 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 nine forty one. S two fifty five was passed by the house with a proposal of amendment. The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? Recognize the senator from Rutland.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Senators will remember us voting this bill out earlier in the session. It establishes a pilot law enforcement governance council in Windham County, which is a voluntary measure. The house has sent back one change to what we put forth, and I'll just reference that as sort of a midpoint check-in. The pilot program was intended to run for five years, and the house is suggesting that on or before 09/30/2030, and again, when it runs out, in consultation with the Windham County Sheriff or Windham County assistant judges that there be a comprehensive evaluation of the pilot program to both committees, the house and the senate government operations. It will include an assessment of the cost effectiveness compared to alternative service delivery models and analysis of service quality improvements and evaluation of governance model effectiveness, and then recommendations regarding continuation modification or expansion of the program, and finally, a proposed framework for statewide replication if warranted. The committee unanimously votes in favor of adding that amendment, and we're asked that the senate concur with the house proposal. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Are you

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You've concurred in the house proposal of amendment on s two fifty five. We have on the calendar for action h eight fourteen introduced on 01/29/2026. 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. Affecting the appropriations of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H eight fourteen. An act relating to neurological rights and the use of artificial intelligence technology in health and human services.

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

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. H eight fourteen is an act relating to neurological rights and the use of artificial intelligence, technology, and health and human services. If you are a fan of George Orwell, Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov, you read the book Feed by Vermont, author M. T. Anderson, this is the bill for you because this is the stuff of science fiction. I think you're all aware that artificial intelligence is infiltrating just about every aspect of our lives. It's being used to track us, to gather our data, to then disperse our data, and to manipulate our behaviors. It's legal and in many cases we're making a choice to engage with it however there's a lot we still don't understand and frankly a lot that we're not even aware of. In the health care sector, which is what we're interested in in our health and welfare committee, there are technologies that are developing and rapidly being deployed that could threaten our rights, increase exploitation, and pose great harm. There's also a potential benefit to AI. Right? So we wanna do it right. We don't wanna crush innovation, but we do wanna set some guardrails. That's what this bill is attempting to do, and it's only a first step. It makes a statement of intent by adding basic neurological rights in statute as a starting place. Well, why do we need this? As I said, AI is omnipresent in our lives, and it's, becoming so in health care and in human services. Some of the most interesting and chilling testimony that we got in committee was from a neurologist. He underscored that neurological data is different from other health data. It's not just tracking our biological functions. It's tracking our brain activity in our nervous system. It can look at intention and experience, and so in that sense it gave us pause for sure. It

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: woke us up when

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: we heard this information. It can detect patterns of fatigue and attention. So he showed us these headphones that you can place, on your ears, and, they can basically measure brain waves. They have these sensors that measure your brain waves and they can identify anxiety, depression, Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, Alzheimer's, so they can see what's going on inside your head. The technologies can observe neurological activity and they can interact with it. You can order these devices online. They're medical grade technology that you can buy on the interwebs, and it's already frankly a billion dollar industry. This bill doesn't really contemplate what's happening in the private sector, but we are looking at how this will affect healthcare and human services. The question is who owns the data and how can it be used appropriately? Current Vermont frameworks are just not sufficient and this bill will hopefully help create a framework. Again, it's just a first step for the future. The American Medical Association has already adopted a policy to define and protect neural data, and currently four states have laws, Colorado, Montana, Connecticut, and California. We also heard that countries are now starting to really grapple with this. Chile, for example, has already done a constitutional amendment to enshrine neurological rights in their constitution. Canada as well has done some of that work and then other parts of the globe are starting to step into this arena. Here's a little bit of Vermont AI history. In 2018, we became the first state in the country to pass AI legislation with the AI task force. It had a one point five or one and a half year mission to create a report on what state government should do about AI. It recommended that Vermont create an AI commission and a code of ethics to examine all the ways the state was using AI. So again, we're not talking private sector. Their work did not touch the private sector. The task force did its work publicly and went around the state with an open process that focused on engagement and education, and the senate decided actually, it was this body, the senate decided to create a division of AI built into the government, and ADS was given a division and a director. It became known nationwide as the Vermont model. The idea was not to overregulate the Desert guardrails. So if you look at the bill that's before you, and it's the same as it, came to us from the house, Section one basically just sets out the intent of the bill, which I explained in my introduction. Section two creates a new chapter 42 c in title 18, and this lays out the purpose of individual rights to mental and neurological data privacy and freedom of thought. And then section three amends title three chapter 5,023 the chapter on the AI advisory council. This is really the sort of the meat of the bill. It adds some new members in an attempt to sort of expand the scope of the council. It changes changes the Commissioner of Health to the Secretary of Human Services or designee. It then adds a member with health care experience appointed by the Vermont Medical Society. It adds another member with experience in public education appointed by the Vermont NEA. It adds the state treasurer or designee, and it adds we still want the governor to have a say, so it adds a governor appointee who has relevant knowledge and experience. So there are currently 10 members on that council. We're adding four. It then extends the advisory council another three years to June 30 06/30/2030 and frankly we may want that council to go on beyond 2030 because again this is a burgeoning area that we're just starting to learn about. Section four asks that a report be submitted on or before 01/15/2027 and the bill will take effect on passage. We heard from the sponsor of the bill we heard from Vermont Legal Aid, Vermont Medical Society, We heard from that neurologist, Sean Kesha Hinsdale of the Neuro Rights Foundation. We heard from a lawyer at the Neuro Rights Foundation. We heard from Rick Barnett of the Vermont Psychological Association, and we also heard from the attorney general's office. And the voting committee was five zero zero. We ask that the senate concur. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. Appropriations reviewed the bill and identified that there may be, some per per diems added in as a result of membership on the AI advisory council. And, the committee voted seven zero zero thinking that the, appropriations would be de minimis and, ask that you also support our, bill. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) – President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, Mr. President. I was one of the appropriations committee members who voted to, to support the funding in here. At that time, I was a little confused by the neurological rights laid out on page two. So if I might inquire of the presenter of the bill

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) – President Pro Tempore]: The bill contains no definitions so I find some of the listed rights individual rights confusing and I'm wondering if if the senator can clear that up for me so number four says you have the right to change an individual has the right to change their decision regarding neurotechnology and the right to determine by what means to change that decision and I I have thought about that quite a bit and I can't think of what it means so if the senator could clarify.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Well I'll just start by saying that the definitions we didn't define some of the terms in this bill because we because frankly they're not quite fully fleshed out yet. So, some of the depth, you know, some of the definitions will be worked on by the council. I would love to speak briefly alleged counsel to make sure I get the answer right on this particular question.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We'll take a brief recess.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Will senate please come to order? You may continue your questioning, senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) – President Pro Tempore]: And and I will thank the senator at this point. In our, discussion, it was made clear to me that part of the intent is to have the Intelligence Advisory Council work on, the individual rights, the statement of individual rights, and, so I would trust in their work, which will come back I assume for review of the legislature. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Question 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. No. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you've ordered third reading of h eight fourteen. We have on the calendar for action h five thirty six, which was passed the house on 03/24/2026. It was referred to the committee on health and welfare, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the senate propose to the house that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page 2,030 in today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Page five thirty six, an act relating to toxic heavy metals and baby food products.

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

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Okay. Hopefully, this one's a little more straightforward. This is h five thirty six, a bill related to toxic heavy metals and baby food products. This report is a strike all amendment and it requires food manufacturers to test their baby food products for heavy metals and make the relevant results available to the public. Producers may not sell those products that exceed regulatory limits established by the FDA. So the problem we're trying to solve is that we now have evidence from several studies that there's widespread presence of heavy metals in baby foods with potential long term health impacts on infants and their rapidly developing brains and bodies. Children are more susceptible than adults to the harmful impacts of heavy metals which include severe health consequences like neurocognitive disorders, behavioral disorders, respiratory problems, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. The fix that we have in this particular bill is to require testing of baby foods and formula, and it is also to educate and inform parents and caregivers through the requirement of labeling and information availability so that we don't harm infants and babies. And you'll see that the bill adds infant formula to the definition of baby food. Why did we include infant formula? Infants can be exposed to toxic heavy metals through their food including formula and there are some recent studies that have been really shocking and eye opening. In May 2025 consumer reports published a study where they tested 41 powder formula products for toxic medical, metals and about half of the samples contain potentially harmful levels of at least one toxic metal contaminant. Then in January 2026, Florida governor and department of health published a study that tested 24 formulas and it found elevated levels of heavy metals like mercury in 16 pointing to systemic problems in sourcing or manufacturing. These studies show that some formulas are better than others. There's actually quite a few on the market. Parents and caregivers deserve to have this information to make informed purchasing decisions for their infants. I did a little research, it was so fascinating to learn that formula showed up infant formula first showed up in a relatively large commercial fashion in 1865, which I had no idea it's been around that long. It wasn't until 1980 that the FDA started regulating formula when two mothers saw that their babies were getting sick from a chloride deficiency. They contacted the FDA about the baby formula and the FDA actually responded that they have been trying for years to get Congress to grant them the power to regulate baby food. The moms relentlessly lobbied Congress until the infant formula act was passed by the FDA again in 1980 giving them the authority to make sure that all formulas met certain nutritional requirements. What did we hear from the formula industry? Because of course we did hear from the formula industry. During committee, testimony, representatives from the formula industry stated that they already conducted thorough testing for heavy metals. Under h five thirty six, they would then just need to make these results publicly available. But one of the things that I learned in reading this Consumer Reports report is that infant formula is one of the most regulated foods on the market. However, the focus of that regulation is on the nutritional components of the formula and also on bacteria prevention. So they they want to prevent bacterial, contamination, but they don't really look that heavily at heavy metals or toxins. So, that was an interesting discrepancy that I found. So in this strike all amendment, if you look at the various sections, section one will amend title 18 chapter 82, which is the labeling chapter. And we change the title of the Subchapter one from Labeling for Marketing and Sale to General Provisions. We add a new Subchapter three, testing and labeling of certain products and we add section 4,091 baby food products and in subsection a there are a bunch of definitions subsection b prohibits the sale of baby food products that exceed the regulatory limits established by the US FDA. We added the word regulatory. The Senate Health and Welfare Committee added the word regulatory and we added, that the remaining inventory and stock could be sold off until it's gone. Subsection c requires testing at least once a month. D one requires that the manufacturer of the baby food product make available on its website the name and level of each toxic heavy metal, information to identify the product, and then a link to the US FDA website with the most recent guidance around the effects of toxic heavy metals on children. Again, this is about educating parents and caregivers. D2 just lays out the requirements for online sales. E requires the manufacturer to label if a food is subject to action level, regulatory limit, or tolerance level established by the US FDA. And, section one in that under e a label that states more information about the toxic element testing on the product has to be available by scanning a QR code and the QR code has to link to the test results or again to the US FDA's website with guidance and information about health effects. In F you have the provision where a consumer may report the baby food product that is exceeding the toxic toxin level to the Attorney General. G says that the Attorney General and private same rights provided in statute if there is a violation. H, we added nothing in the section shall be construed to conflict with federal law or regulation. In section two we amend 18 BSA chapter 4,091 to include infant formula as a baby food product. Subsection G, we call that a fail safe. It's a fail safe regarding the Attorney General's authority. It says that the Attorney General in consultation with the Commissioner of Health shall suspend the application of this section, of this infant formula section, if the Attorney General verifies that there is insufficient infant formula in the state or evidence of a declining supply. We just wanted to make sure that, like we saw around COVID, there started to be a shortage of infant formulas and we wanted to make sure that this does not affect parents and caregivers in the event that there is a declining supply. So in that unlikely, highly unlikely case that there is a shortage of formula as a consequence of Vermont's law going into effect the bill gives the Attorney General the authority to suspend the infant formula provision of the law. Section three allows for the continued sale of inventory again we want to make sure that people can still buy what's on the shelf. Section four, those are the effective dates. And in this bill, the effective dates are actually kind of, important. So I will go through those. Sections one and three will take effect on 01/01/2027. We tried to be very conservative here. Section two contains a trigger mechanism. So the infant formula provision won't take effect in law until, a law has taken effect in California or two other states. And we changed that from a law that's enacted to a law that takes effect. Again, just trying to be as careful as we could possibly be. This approach ensures that Vermont is aligned with a broader national trend. We didn't want to be the only ones. The state will not be on its own or imposing unique requirements on manufacturers because we are as we know a small part of the market. Where else is this kind of action been taken? California. They have passed a law to test for toxic heavy metals lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury and then disclose the results Maryland, Virginia, and Illinois. We heard from the sponsor of the bill. We heard from the Associated Industries of Vermont. We heard from the Attorney General's office. We heard from a group called unleaded kids. We heard from the Department of Health. We heard from the Infant Nutrition Council of America. And, ultimately, we voted the bill out three two zero, and we asked that the senate concur. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is shall shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on health and welfare. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you,

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: mister president.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: May I inquire of the reporter

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

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you. I am extremely supportive, of making sure that our baby food and and formula is healthy and safe for babies in Vermont and everywhere, frankly. But I'm a little confused by the sort of mechanisms in this bill. Could you, could the reporter clarify for me what the FDA prohibits in baby food? The federal regulations already prohibit toxic heavy metals in baby food? Yes they do yes. Okay so if the federal regulations already prohibit it Why is there toxic heavy metals in baby food? What we heard was that there's it's almost impossible to have no heavy metals in baby food, sadly, because of the amount of heavy metals that are in our environment, including our water supply. So, in fact, the FDA has, they have a program or they're working they they have something called closer to zero. They know they can't get to zero, so what they're trying to do is just get as close to zero as they can. So to answer your question, yes, but certainly there is a difference and not all of the food is, you know, they're not all equal and especially with infant formula. There are some formulas that have dangerously high levels and then there are some formulas that are actually quite safe and the consumer reports report was great because they actually outlined all the different formula brands and how much toxins or how many toxins they have or don't have. But yes we are we are trying to get closer to zero knowing that we will never get to zero. Okay so if there if a formula is extremely high in toxic heavy metals, does the FDA require that it be taken off the shelves or or not? Currently, no. And what I found in this consumer reports report is that in the same way in 1980 the FDA wanted congressional authority to test. They still would like more authority to work on infant formula. They just have not been granted it. In fact, reading more about this, you probably have heard that the FDA has lost a lot of funding. They've lost a lot of positions and they're in a state right now where they actually can't do the work that they would like to do. That is definitely clarifying. So this essentially would allow Vermont to regulate the labeling of the baby food and infant formula where the FDA's regulations are insufficient. That's correct. As I said at the beginning of the my testimony my report this is about, labeling and educating and informing. So the the products would still potentially be for sale in Vermont they would just have to be labeled with how much heavy metal is in them. Technically they should not the ones that are exceeding FDA levels should not be on the shelf and if they are I talked about the attorney general and a private right of action if necessary Okay. To get them Thank you, mister president. That is helpful from my understanding.

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

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Thank you, mister president. Generally speaking, strong supporter of not letting babies eat heavy metals, but I do have a concern, at least an initial concern with some of the language on page twenty thirty three regarding the attorney general. And I noticed one of the differences between, the committee's proposal and the bill that's passed by the house, is the addition of language that says evidence of a declining supply, and generally speaking, there is an ebb and flow of supply, for any product, and so I would like to, inquire of the presenter.

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

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Thank you. Mister president, I'm wondering if you could describe what the parameters might be as to what as to how we would define a declining supply.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Mr. President, we did not get into the specifics. We did talk about this and we were wondering, you know, how is the Attorney General gonna know if there's a declining supply? We are leaving that up to the Attorney General in concert with the, Department of Health to, sort of just, you know, keep an eye on the supply chain issues, which is, you know, what we saw during the pandemic. But we did not specify a specific mechanism.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: K. I thank the senator.

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

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Mister president, I was one of the ones that voted no on this and for first of all, I wanna explain. I'm certainly not against infant going against infants or mothers or fathers or families. You've heard some of the discussion here from other senators and there may be a potential for a legal challenge on this is an FDA in labeling issue in my opinion and the way I understood it this amendment got added at the last second on the House floor and so I'm not sure that this has been fully vetted yet. Want to make absolutely sure that infants are well looked after and that this bill does exactly what we want to do. I I'm thinking it's gonna go to the house and more work will be done on it. And for that reason, I will be supporting this bill now. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Question is, shall the senate post to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on health and welfare? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You've proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on health and welfare. The question now is, shall the bill be read third time?

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden Southeast)]: 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. Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Yes. Secretary shall call the roll.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Yes.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Senator Hashim? Yes. Senator Heffernan?

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: Yay. Senator Ingalls? Yes. Senator Lanier? Yes.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator Major? Yes. Senator Manto? Yes. Senator Morley. Yes. Senator North. Yes.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Senator Pershlik.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Yes. Senator Plunkett.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Yes. Senator Ron Hinsdale.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Yes.

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

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Senator

[Senator Richard Westman (Lamoille)]: Yes. Senator White? Yes.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Williams.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Those voting yes, 28. Those voting no, zero. And the ayes have it. You've ordered third reading of h five thirty six. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) – President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, mister president. I think that is a good morning's work, and we've cleared much of the calendar. So, with that said, I would move that the senate stand in German until 11AM Wednesday, 05/06/2026.

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

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, Mr. President. One final reminder that the State House will look very different when you come back tomorrow. This is a very special day where we are unveiling the portrait of Lavinia Dorsey Bright, the first black woman to serve legislature beginning in 1988 from South Burlington. I will briefly say what I plan to say in the house chambers for the event, takes place between four to six today. But there are 87 portraits hanging in the State House. The most recent one being of Alexander Twilight, the first black man to serve in the legislature, one hundred and fifty years before Louvenia Dorothy Bright. There are three portraits of women out of the 87 that hang in our halls of power. Please attend and please also note this falls on right in short succession after the fall of many important provisions of the Voting Rights Act, something I hope we will all fight to uphold. And I hope this portrait unveiling today reminds folks that equal representation under the law is critical for equal protection under the law. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: I just wanted to clarify real quickly that

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

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. I just wanted to clarify, in the house chamber, that event will go from four to maybe 05:00, and then there is a reception in the Cedar Creek Room after that. It's not two hours in the house. You, Mr. President.

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

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, Mr. President. I could give you a long story about how the biology of human and dog relationship just makes people feel good. I won't, but there is a lot of science that shows that being around dogs lowers your blood pressure makes you feel happier. You might wonder why I'm telling you this. There will be therapy dogs here visiting at noon today in the lobby. Therapy Dogs of Vermont is one of our awesome nonprofits. My dog is a certified therapy dog. She may make an appearance, and if people are feeling a little stressed out, go pet a dog. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Thank you, senator. I did my therapeutic walk with my therapy dogs already this morning. Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Monday, an announcement, senate finance will meet at 01:00, and I have been trying to get a therapy dog in this building for at least twenty years.

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you. Senator appropriations. I think he's meeting at one, so come down and look at our magic chalkboard and find out.

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Senator government operations will also meet at one.

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

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate health and welfare, I'd like to ask to meet briefly over in that corner after we have adjourned.

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

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Senator Dishari will meet five minutes after

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: the fall of that.

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

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you. Senate Economic Development Housing and General Affairs will also meet five minutes at about 11:40 where, I'm gonna see if we can hear, about, the house amendment on s one seventy three. Thank you.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) – President Pro Tempore]: Mister president, the education committee will meet at 01:15.

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

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: The senate after resources and energy will not meet this morning.

[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 11AM, Wednesday, 05/06/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we'll stand in adjournment until 11AM, Wednesday, 05/06/2026.