Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senate, please come to order. We'll observe a moment of silence in lieu of a devotional. Thank you. Are there any announcements? Seeing none. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: If I might just have a second recess.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We'll take a brief recess. Will the senate please come to order?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: I understand. Understand. Sir, can you

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: your brother?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Pursuant to temporary rule 44 a, the following bill having failed to meet crossover and being released by the committee on rules is now referred as following. H nine zero two to government operations. H nine fifty six to government operations. We are waiting for senator Lyons, and she will be here briefly, we've been told, so we will take a brief recess.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans)]: Look. He tried to probably.

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

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. Assuring the president that I voted with the prevailing side, I move that the senate reconsider its vote on its concurrence in the house proposal of amendment on s two thirty nine. The reason that we need to take this, vote is that there was an error in the House proposal amendment as it was sent to the Senate. This has now been corrected, and because we voted on the incorrect version of the house proposal amendment yesterday, we must reconsider our vote or else the bill would not be able to be sent to the governor's desk as both bodies would not have agreed to the same language on the bill. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The senator from Chittenden Southeast has moved that the senate reconsider its actions on the house proposal amendment to s two thirty nine. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: And just a clarification for senators, the idea is that this will go to the calendar so that we are fully transparent about what we're doing, and there will be a twenty four hour period for people to review. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've agreed to reconsider the vote on the house proposal of amendment to s two thirty nine in order to be properly noticed the bill and the corrected house proposal of the bill will be placed on tomorrow's notice calendar. Orders of the day. We'll start with third readings. We have h five twelve. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you. There was a question from the senator from Chittenden North about well, I'm I'm not gonna summarize it, but I will answer it the following way. I understand there are concerns going forward from some advocates and I would say that we are the venues are open to monitor that behavior which is selling scam tickets outside of venues. This is something we're going to have to monitor and that is why we meet every year. We can review things and see how they're working and this also has a sunset in two years. So I think we're all all eyes are going to be on how this works. And the venue certainly have a high degree of interest in making sure it's working. And so I think it will be monitored, and I think that we will be able to review how it's working both next year and when it sunsets in two years.

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

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H five twelve. An act relating to the regulation of the event ticket market.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the bill is passed in concurrence with proposal of amendment. We now have h five thirty six 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 five thirty six, an act relating to toxic heavy metals in baby food products.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it, and we have passed h five thirty six in concurrence with proposal of amendment. H five fifty nine, are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

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

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it and we passed h five fifty nine in concurrence with proposal of amendment. We now have h six seventy four. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading.

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

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H 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)]: The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and we have passed h eight fourteen in concurrence. We now have h nine forty one. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading.

[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)]: Now you've heard the third reading of the bill, 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, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we passed h nine forty one in concurrence with proposal of amendment. Okay. How far down is that? My understanding is that you would like to move to the capital bill, senator.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: It's Heffernan.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: One fifty two. I got it right here. I'm gaining on it, Melissa. We now have on the calendar for action h five nine fifty two, which passed the house on 04/28/2026. It was referred to the committee on institutions, 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 twenty one twenty eight of today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the revenues of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on finance, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as recommended by the committee on institutions. Affecting the expenditures of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as recommended by the committee on institutions with further proposal of amendment as found in today's calendar on page twenty one thirty seven. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H nine fifty two, an act relating to capital construction and state bond budget adjustment.

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

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thanks, madam.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: H nine fifty two is this year's capital bill adjustment, updating the two year bill adopted last year as act 33. As we are in the second year of the biennium, this bill amends the prior bill. Our focus today will be on the FY 27 projects and bonded dollars. The language of the bill starts on page twenty one twenty eight of today's calendar. Now the spreadsheet was just handed out and we'll get to that soon, but in the meantime, senators will recall that we adhered to the recommendations of the Capital Debt Affordability Advisory Committee or CDAC for the biennial bonding limit. In this two year capital bill, the limit was 100,000,000 total for the two years. It's notable that the limit was influenced by the backlog of projects from the pandemic and the floods, leaving a surplus of funding not used. If not for this backlog, the recommendation would likely have been higher if the CDAC considered just the financial conditions of the state. So going to the spreadsheet. There are three main sections when you look at the spreadsheet. The governor recommend is in beige, the house approved in red, and the senate committee proposed amendments in green. Each section includes sets of columns for each of the two fiscal years showing bonding showing funding through bonding and cash and the total for that year. Now the cash funding is included in the already approved appropriations bill. My review will focus on the f y twenty seven bond funding and the total amounts of bonding and cash. So what I'd like you to do is start at the end of the spreadsheet, which is often what people wanna see anyway, which is you have your spreadsheet, just flip the whole thing over the whole packet over, and at the bottom, you'll see lines two zero three and two zero four. And if you look at each section, it's the end of the section. So in the governor recommend, you'll see a 158,986,915. Does everyone see that? Hope you do. That is the total of the governor's recommend. If you go to the right at the end of the red section, which is the house, it's 159,550,328, which is the house recommend or the house approved. And then at the far end is the senate recommendation senate institution recommendation, which is a 160,419,178. So those are big numbers. Those the total project cost and capital funding of both bonded dollars and cash are on those lines. 160,000,000 is significantly more than 100,000,000. So the reason that that occurred is that the CDAC proposed amount is for new general obligation bonding. And as you can see, the total of 100,000,000 on line 180, back on that back page, which is capital borrowing GO bonding. So that's general obligation bonding, and you'll see that that is limited at 100,000,000. The roughly 60,000,000 increase in projects and funding is mostly a a function of previous amounts allocated but not spend, which is roughly 44,000,000 bond premiums 14,000,000, and interest received on the cash interest received on the cash, 1,800,000. So that's just the revenue summary. So go please go back to the front of the spreadsheet where you'll see the different sections. The first grouping of projects in section two is the agency of administration, specifically buildings and general services or BGS. This section provides funding to maintain state owned buildings and property. Roughly half of the funding in this section is in major maintenance on line one seven and it's $17,800,000. This funding provides BGS the flexibility to repair and maintain the two forty three buildings for which they are responsible, more than 400,000,000 square feet. Examples are office buildings, parking garages, courthouses, public safety buildings, and the state house. Before we received the capital bill the house capital bill,

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

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: we received a letter from the administration expressing concern with House changes of five projects. We took testimony and addressed the concerns, and I'll highlight those projects as we go through the spreadsheet. One of the five items in the letter is in this section on line four, three acre parcel storm water compliance for state owned properties. This is partial funding for eight sites within the Lake Champlain and Memphremagog watersheds. The governor's recommend was a total of 2,600,000 in bonded dollars, which you can see in columns b, c, and d. This is a good example of the structure of the spreadsheet, and I can go into it more later if somebody wishes. The house removed 1,500,000 of the bonded dollars. This is column I and j. Senate institutions put back $1,000,000 of funding in cash rather than bonded dollars, BGS will use the 2,100,000 total of bonded and cash for the three acre projects. So I that's know a lot of moving parts, but the overall impact is that because one of the eight sites is the capital complex, and much of that work will need to wait until the FEMA twenty three flood process is past the next stage, the 2,100,000 will be sufficient for the coming year. That's what matters the most. The 2,100,000 that you'll see in the Senate proposal will be sufficient. The other change in this section is to add 25,000 to the state house entryway project to plan for a second floor egress. Okay. Section three, agency of human services is primarily corrections facilities and includes the other four items that are in the administration's letter. On line eight, door controls, the house reduced funding as the project seemed stalled, but by the time the senate considered the item, a contract had been signed and the senate replaced the $2,000,000. The Northern state boiler replacement, line 29, has been in multiple capital bills and is a complicated project impacting storm water and site design. We were able to add back most of the funding by increasing bonded dollars by 700,000. BGS staff was okay with this change as the project will continue through FY '28 and the funding needs will be better defined. This project will reduce operating costs and provide environmental benefits by replacing the boiler boiler fuel of number two oil with wood pellets. Both the house and senate committees are concerned with the slow implementation of functional Wi Fi in the correctional facilities. This is line 31. For the staff and the inmates, it's crucial to have connectivity to the outside world. The administration budgeted zero, counting on a funding source which we understand is not feasible. In response, the house proposed $3,000,000 to make sure that the project is prioritized and initiated. We in the senate had multiple discussions with the administration and BGS regarding the physical challenges and agreed to $250,000 for planning with the understanding that the administration will prioritize this project. The final item of the five in the administration letter is on line 32. The administration noted that the women's prison has sufficient funding allocated to start the project for a new prison. That may be, but the Senate Institutions Committee is very concerned about the conditions of the current prison. So we added 598,650 in bonds and 500,000 in cash to renovate the bathrooms particularly and make other necessary repairs. The funding would also allow renovations at other sites if that was required. Line 32 a is a new item that allocates 220,000 to Recovery House. We supported Recovery House in the '23 capital budget for a similar project. The 220,000 is to repair the headquarters of Recovery House, which is the only nonprofit addiction treatment provider in the state. So next page of the now you're gonna have to open the pages. But section five lines forty six and forty seven, historic preservation and farm preservation grants are increased by $100,000 each. These matching grants go directly to Vermonters and are an extremely cost effective method to pervert to preserve these structures across the state. In 2025, 23 barn grants were awarded out of 31 applicants with an average grant of approximately $16,000 19 historic preservation grants were awarded out of 32 applicants with an average of $17,000 per grant. So these are minimal grants but they are very impactful. Lines fifty nine and sixty include funding for significant ongoing renovations to the Vermont Veterans Home in Bennington. We agreed with the house construct, so there are no new changes. I continue and the rest of the committee also to just be impressed with the diligence of the staff to get the best value for state dollars in this project, which is improving the living services of our veterans. Why eighty three a would provide a $100,000 to Vermont town for design and implementation of storm or utilities, I'll talk more later about some more utilities. Next page, line one twenty six, the Newport Courthouse replacement. This project has been discussed for years. The courthouse has security challenges and life safety concerns, accessibility issues, and sits at a prominent corner of the downtown. The town is working through the site planning, and the administration reallocated 750,027 in cash for this project, and this is also the judiciary's top priority to to replace. So that's it for the spreadsheet, and I can pause here for questions. Okay. So oh,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: I guess No. No.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Sorry. Probably not. Yeah. Okay.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Sorry. I was looking at the spreadsheet, but we we when you're done your presentation, each senator will have the opportunity to stand up and question you.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Right. And then we have the other committees also. So scratch that. So I will now review the instances of change in the language of the bill which will have basically the items that I discussed in the spreadsheet. So if you want to go to the calendar on page twenty one twenty eight. If you are interested you can you might need to look at the as passed by House also because the language of the bill, the structure of the proposed amendment is not a strike all, so I'll need to refer to the bill as we received it by the House of Corrections and Institution as well as the calendar. So the first instance of amendment, section one of act 33, last year's act, established the total bonding amount for the biennial cap campaign capital budget. This increase of $868,850 reflects money proposed by the house and re reallocated to be put to new use. Second instance, section two of act 33 sets out the bond funded project authorizations for state buildings. This instance amends the house proposal proposal for two f y twenty seven appropriations. Major maintenance is decreased by 475,000, and state house entryway upgrades are increased by 25,000, and the project scope is expanded to include the second floor egress design. Third instance, appropriations for BGS with the agency of human services, primarily corrections. This repeals the FY twenty seven appropriation for a sprinkler system upgrade at the Northern State Correctional Facility in Newport. Its project is still gonna happen. This appropriation is shifted to cash in a later section. It adds new FY '27 appropriations for 700,000 for boiler replacement at Newport, 220,000 to recovery house, 598,850 for maintenance, replacement, and renovations at the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility. Okay. And then we go to the fourth instance, section five of act act 33 includes the bond funded project authorizations in the building communities grants, increasing the allocations to the historic preservation and barn preservation grants by $100,000 each. Fifth instance, section nine of act 33 establishes the bond funded project authorizations for the agency of natural resources. This instance amends the house proposal by adding a new f y 20 '7 appropriation of 100,000 to a and r for support to municipalities to design and implement storm water utilities. Sixth instance, section 17 of act 33 sets out the reallocations and reversions of older capital bill funds, adds the words and revision and reversion to better describe leftover cash funds as opposed to reallocation of bond funds. The Senate added number 19, women's personal facilities, of 868,850 on page two one three two. Seventh instance section 19 of act 33 sets out the cash funded project authorizations. As I noted, these are already in the appropriations bill we approved.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: You

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: can see these on pages twenty one thirty four through twenty one thirty six of the calendar. And those are f three, a new $1,000,000 for three eighty partial compliance. F nine, $2,000,000 increase for door controls at correctional facilities. F 11, new $500,000 for sprinkler at Northern State. That's the one that we removed from the bonding. At twelve, seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars decrease for Chittenden Regional and a change in the scope to address maintenance and renovations rather than replacement. At 22, 2.5 $2.75100 no. Different million decrease for installation of Wi Fi funding in correctional facilities. Eighth instance, new language in section 13. And so this is new, and I haven't spoken about it yet. The house bill, and you can see this on seventeen and eighteen pages pages seventeen and eighteen on the House Bill. The House Bill authorizes the Department of Forest, Parks and Recreation to enter into a forty year lease. It's initial twenty term year with an option for two ten year renewals at the Little River State Park with, an organization, Vermont Huts, to renovate a historic structure and create lodging for trail users. Vermont Huts has received federal funding for the renovation, and it looks like a wonderful project. The concern is what is not in the language authorizing the department to enter into an agreement. The language on page 18 of the house bill lists the subjects that need to be included in the lease, such as term, fee, or fee formula to compensate the state, conditions and boundaries, but it provides no range or limit of these items. It's essentially a blank check. We and senate institutions did not have time to suggest specific parameters, so this language to negotiate rather than enter into a lease is a starting point with the with the house in a immediate context. Ninth instance, this section 14 a repeals the authority of BGS to sell 110 State Street in Montpelier. This is the historic building directly across State Street from the pavilion. You can probably see it if you look out that window. And it is currently used primarily by the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs. We authorized this sale in 2023. In the meantime, BGS has had to prioritize flood rehab of buildings in the Capital Complex and has not put this building up for sale. With the changes in working locations, it's prudent to keep this building in state ownership. Tenth instance, this amendment amends the chapters of title 24 on municipal and regional planning and development and on sewage sewage disposal and storm water systems to ensure that existing municipal municipal authority to regulate storm water is not disrupted by the creation of a regional storm water utility. So that is the bill. The committee vote was five zero zero, and we ask for the senate to vote.

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

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate Finance

[Senator John Morley III (Essex)]: took a look

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: at the

[Senator Christopher Mattos (Chittenden North)]: capital bill, and, we heard from our JFO office and also legislative council, and found there to be a de minimis impact on state revenues as the chair of institutions mentioned about the lease that's primarily where we focused on and now that's going to be, negotiated instead of entered into. Maybe in the future, there may be impacts on state revenue. So on a vote of six zero one, the Senate Finance Committee recommends support of H952. Thank you.

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, president. The appropriations committee looked over the the capital bill for any appropriations. The appropriations of the the bonded dollars are squarely in the jurisdiction of the institutions committee. So we didn't really look at those. There are the cash fund appropriations, but these are appropriations we already had looked at for the big bill, the budget. So all of these 22 cash expenditures on pages two thousand one hundred thirty six and two thousand one hundred thirty five are already in the budget as passed the Senate. So if we were to make any changes here, we'd have to make changes to the budget. So we had reviewed and already approved all of those. So we were we're fine with passing the bill favorably, but then we learned of, an amendment. So I assume I could just describe that now. You may. So the it's like something that came to institutions kind of late was the entryway design, you'll see on line 12 of the spreadsheet is to redo the entryway there, the loading dock. So we have, there was a special committee that had been working on this in the past. The authority for the special committee had expired and, Sergeant Arms and my understanding is the institution committee was supportive of kind of just giving this the committee. I think they changed the

[Senator John Morley III (Essex)]: who was on it

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: a little bit by reconstituting the special committee. Since we had the bill, we just agreed in appropriations to add this language in so that we could have a special committee to oversee the spending on that entryway project. So the the committee voted seven zero zero to pass the bill as amended favorably.

[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? Do you both, have questions on the appropriations amendment?

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. I do not. Are

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You've amended the recommendation of proposal of amendment of the committee on government institutions. Melissa tried to trick me there. As recommended by the committee on appropriations. Now would be the appropriate time for questions. Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: It's been confusing all the pauses here. And first of all, I want to say I'm I noticed the joy of the senator from Windsor on not selling off that beautiful building. I remember in 2023 when she was very sad and objected to that so it's really nice to have it come around to not selling that beautiful building. But Mr. President may I inquire of the reporter of the bill?

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

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you. So when this bill was in finance, asked a question about the courthouses and never got an answer. And I don't know that you'll have the answer. I don't know that the reporter will have the answer, Mr. President, but I would like to see if you could get this answer for me by third reading. So last year, you might recall, when we did the capital bill, I raised some concerns about a different courthouse project and whether or not the county was pitching in the appropriate amount of funds for that project. And later in a mis miscellaneous judiciary bill, we did pass some language related to county obligations for courthouse projects. And so when this bill wasn't financed, I specifically asked that it seems like there are two courthouse projects in here, one related to the Newport Courthouse replacement and then one related to the White River Junction Courthouse. The complication with courthouses Mr. President is sometimes they're owned by the state and sometimes they're owned by the county so I was just wondering if on third reading you could unless you know now, Mr. President, but if you don't, if you could let me know which I think the White River Junction Courthouse is state owned and the other one might be county owned. And so I'm wondering, first of all, which is which, and then if the for the county owned process if there is one that is county owned whether the county has done the the required by you know sort of pitch in the required amount of funding and if you know the answer now, that would be great, mister president. If not, if I could get that for third reading, that would be helpful.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Thank you, mister president, for that. And, yes, I would like to, double check, especially with since your since your question is about two courthouses. I wanna double check, and I will bring that.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Great. If that could

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: be for a third reading,

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: I would appreciate it.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Of course. You, mister president.

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

[Senator John Morley III (Essex)]: Mister president, I believe, I

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans)]: have forgotten, the cash portion of this bill was approved during the appropriations bill process. Would

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: you like to present someone with a question?

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans)]: Yes. The senator from Washington.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: He he he can interrogate

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: the Reporter. I'm sorry.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: You can re interrogate the reporter of the bill. Sure. Thank The reporter of the bill is interrogated. Okay. Sorry. The senator from Washington can, respond as the reporter.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: So

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: mister president, is the question whether the all the cash fund expenditures were in the budget? If that's the question, then the answer is yes. All of these 22 expenditures of the cash fund of cash non abundant dollars were reviewed and placed in whole into the budget H951.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans)]: Okay. So mister president, the 36,854,000. And then the cash, is that are those all general fund dollars,

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: mister president? Yes, mister president. Those are all general fund dollars.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans)]: Okay. And the mister president, I'm not sure on the bonding. I I don't

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I think I need to

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans)]: talk to the reporter of the underlying bill.

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

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans)]: So it's a it's a was it a $100,000,000? Is that what you get every single year, mister president?

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: So the CDAC makes a recommendation before each biennium, and the most recent recommendation was $100,000,000 for both of the years in this biennium. We show it as 50,000,000 each year. It doesn't have to be that. It could be $60.40, but the total that we choose to allocate for bonded dollars is a 100,000,000. We're not required to go by CDAC, but we do.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans)]: Okay. So, mister president, on the on the bottom page for capital funding, the the total bonded amount is $123,000,005.64. Right?

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Yes. Oh, thank you, mister president, for that question. Yes. And there that includes the bond premium. You can see that on line one eighty one. And then there's some other, increases which I can talk to staff and let you know.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans)]: Don't nope. Mister President, so it seems like the cash stayed consistent throughout the process from the government rec governor's recommend, the house,

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: and the senate, and it it

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans)]: seems like the wiggle room seems to come from the bonding authority

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: of the bill. Is that correct?

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: So thank you for that question. I would say the flexibility, not I wouldn't call it wiggle room, but I would say the flexibility, is mostly in the cash, but it's also in the bonded because, we aren't assured of these premiums. I mean that's that's basically a bonus that we get when we bond. We don't know what they're going to be, but there's a lot of flexibility in both sources, which makes it, more complicated when we put, items together. And can I and just to expand a little bit, there the are cash is more flexible than the bonding? The bonding dollars need to be traditionally capital dollar or or capital funds that have a a long term and at least five years, but we we prefer twenty years is is what's in the statute. So so the the bonded dollars are more

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans)]: restrictive. Restricted. And And the the bonded bonded dollars dollars are are deal general obligation bonds?

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: General obligation bonds.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans)]: Right. And it's through, I'm guessing, the Roth Bond Bank?

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: No. The treasurer sorry. The treasurer handles these bonds. The bond bank handles municipal bonds and other bonds.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans)]: Okay. Thank you. Thank thank you, presenter. Are

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

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

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. I'm gonna bring the chamber back to a, kind of an older conversation in relation to, three acre impervious storm water modifications. In particular relative to relevant to the Vermont State Fairgrounds. And I've noticed on line four, there's a statewide three acre parcel storm water line, and also on 52, agricultural fair field days capital projects. I'm just wondering if the committee contemplated, supporting the Vermont Safe Fairgrounds in their quest to, mitigate the three acre storm water impervious surface rule to the benefit of that particular site given that the cost of their project far exceeds their receipts on an annual basis and, but the notional cost of the project itself to provide clean water downstream. Mister President.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Thank you, Mister President, for that. The committee has in multiple years heard from the Rutland Fair. We hear from all of the fairs, but we have heard from the State Fair in Rutland. And the costs are tremendous compared to their income. We have provided support. As you noted, the three acre parcel stormwater funding in section two is not for the fairs. The fairs are are handled on a different line item. No. But yes. And I can get you more information before third reading. I'd I'd I'd like to get you specific information on what 've done.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Okay. I thank the, I thank the reporter. Thank you. We're in Rowland County, we're quite concerned with the status of the Volante State Fair as, and just trying to make sure that we maintain visibility on a kind of an icon of the state certainly in our region. We can very quickly bankrupt that facility given our legislative action to impose a three acre impervious surface rule compared to what we support them with budget to mitigate for the same effect. And again, we can very quickly take them, into bankruptcy given the nature of that necessary investment. So I I just wanna maintain the chamber's awareness of the situation there that there that the Vermont State Fair revenues could not provide even a tenth of the necessary cost to support such a project, and we could very quickly lose a state icon. Thank you, mister president. I thank again, thank the, committee and thank the chair for their diligent work on the capital budget. Thank you.

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

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Speaking of state icons, I would like to thank both the house and the senate for their support of the continued work on the renovation of the State House, one of our most treasured buildings in in Vermont, certainly one of the most visited by our tourists in major need of upgrades both for our disabled community, for our entryway, for the whole way you enter and are oriented to this magnificent living museum. I am so grateful to you for supporting the work that continues the design and engineering work on this important project, and thank you very much.

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

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. May I require of the reporter of the bill?

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

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Mister president, the $13,000,000 in bond premium, can you define that for me, please? What that what that includes or what that is?

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Yes. Thank you. Happy to. When we go out to bond, there is put it out to bid, basically, our our bond, saying that we'll we're we're essentially borrowing long term funding. If the folks who are buying the bonds, if they appreciate the value of

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans)]: the market

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: and expect them to be sold at a higher level than the expected price, then they sometimes will, pay more for those. So so that's it's a premium because we're we actually have a really good track record and bond rating for for multiple bonds rating companies. So, even though we're small, folks like Vermont bonds in their portfolio, and so that's one of the reasons that they'll they'll, that we receive a a premium.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. I don't know if 13.7% is a great premium rate as a businessman doing loans. I just don't understand why it's so high, but thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Yeah. I I would just like to respond to that. So, that's in addition to the to the payment that we get with interest. The the the premium is on top of that. So I can I I can provide the interest payment to the state also?

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

[Senator John Morley III (Essex)]: I'd like to help with that a little bit. So that 13,000,000 plus million dollars is a really kind of a reward to Vermont for the way that they issue their bonds and pay their bonds and pay the debt and all that. So these companies that are looking to give us a $100,000,000, looks at all of what Vermont's doing and said, you know what, they're not so much of a risk. So we don't have to be as careful. So in addition to doing a $100,000,000 worth of bond ratings, we're going to give them another $13,000,000 plus worth of dollars because we really kind of like the way Vermont's doing their business. And that, yes, we'll give you the $100,000,000 ensure that we actually get the right issue those $100,000,000 we're going to give you another $13,000,000 on top of that because we like the way that you guys pay your bills. Thank you Mr. President.

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

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: May I inquire of the presenter?

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

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: I have a really specific kind of in the weeds question on page nine or actually if you're in your calendar it's 2133 down at the bottom on line 17. It looks like we're taking back almost a million dollars spending to install EV charging stations and I'm just wondering why. Right,

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: thank you. I'd like to give you more detailed information, but in the meantime it was what the administration told us that they did not need anymore, but I'd like to get

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: more information. I would appreciate that on third reading. I'm just curious because I as an EV driver would argue we actually don't have enough EV stations so

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: if there's a million dollars I would

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chittenden Southeast)]: just suggest we use it

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: to make more. So I'd appreciate that on third reading. Thank you.

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

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: And I would like to add to that to fix the ones that we already have. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Would seem we could set a better example at the State House charging stations. We could. Are there any further questions? The question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bills recommended by the committee on institutions as amended? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've 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. You've ordered third reading of h nine fifty two. Yes, sir. We will go back to the top of the calendar, which brings us to we have on the calendar for action h six thirty nine, which was passed by the house 02/27/2026, was referred to the committee on economic development, 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 twenty one twenty three of today's calendar. And that was 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 six thirty nine, an act relating to genetic data privacy.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: I I hate to interrupt. It it would be my suggestion that we, suspend our rules in order to allow the senator a glass of water on the on the floor.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I was taking my time so she could hopefully stop choking. We will take a brief recess while the senator gets a glass of water. Senate please come to order. Senator from Windsor, if you are ready, the floor is yours.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: What's this? Oh, yeah. Thank you. As anyone who serves with me on a committee knows, I have a tipped larynx, and when it shuts down, the whole system shuts down. So I apologize it only takes a second to recover. A genetic fault and that is perfect for the introduction into this bill. So you have before you age six thirty nine. In age six thirty nine an act relating to genetic data privacy your Senate Economic Development Committee brings you yet another consumer protection bill by creating genetic data privacy protections for all the launders. It requires direct to consumer genetic testing companies to provide clear and complete I'm getting ahead of myself. This bill does the following. It protects your most important data, your genetic data. It requires direct to consumer genetic testing companies to provide clear and complete information regarding the complete the company's policies and procedures for the collection and use of consumers' genetic data. It requires consumers to consent to having their genetic data sold, shared, or marketed. Consumers can revoke their consent if they change their mind. The genetic data companies must develop reasonable security procedures. Consumers can delete their data. It has been vetted by other states and it's enforced by the consumer protection act. Genetic data represents some of the most important personal and sensitive information that exists. Genetic data is not just about people genetic data represents the fundamental essence of the biological human being. Our genetic data is who we are in the most intimate sense. While Vermonters are concerned these days about the need to protect their privacy in general, we are especially and intensely concerned about the need for privacy with respect to our own genetic data. The need to protect personal genetic information recently gained visible and national attention in 2023 when personal genetic data in the possession of a major genetic testing company was improperly stored subsequently hacked and exposed nationwide on the internet. During the course of dealing with the fallout of the data privacy brief additional privacy problems with genetic testing companies were identified from from the manner in which companies used and transferred data to how the company is secured and stored genetic data and genetic material to the lack of precision and credibility of the methods used to secure consumers consent to the use and transfer of their genetic data. H639 addresses these genetic data privacy concerns. It will provide among the strongest genetic privacy protections for consumers in the world. Our work in work in this legislation will ensure that Vermont consumers are in the best position possible to control and protect their genetic data and privacy at all times. Senators can find on their desks the bill itself as it passed out of the house and the senate's amendment on page two one three in today's calendar and I'd like with permission to speak to both as I go through the bill. Thank you. Section of the bill starts by creating a new data privacy chapter in title nine and a specific subchapter for the genetic data for genetic data privacy. Section twenty four twenty one a sets forth the short title of this act which is the genetic information privacy act. This section also includes the definitions used in the bill which include biological sample, direct to consumer genetic testing company, express consent genetic data and service providers. Section twenty four twenty one b sets forth the requirement of the the requirements of the bill. Most requirements applied only direct to consumer genetic testing companies. They must provide privacy terms to consumers, which includes information about the company's collection and disclosure of genetic data. It also clarifies when it must get the express consent of a consumer to do something with a consumer's genetic data. For example, consent is required for storing the consumer's data after the testing service has been fulfilled, using the genetic data beyond the primary purpose of the genetic testing and transferring the genetic data to a third party. Certain marketing to the consumer also requires express consent and if applicable disclosure. We were very impressed by one of the genetic testing companies who provide consent at every point and it makes it very easy for you to agree to and to consent to the areas they would like you to be able to either share or disclose and which act that was impressed by. The section this section also sets forth when a consumer can revoke consent previously given. A direct to consumer genetic testing company must honor the revocation request within thirty days of the request. This revocation right includes the deletion of genetic data and the destruction of a biological sample. Direct to consumer genetic testing companies must also develop procedures that allow consumers to access and delete their genetic data as well as requesting the company to destroy their biological samples. A contract between a direct to consumer genetic testing company and its service provider is required to include terms that the service provider must maintain the privacy of any consumer genetic data biological samples they hold during the term of the contract. Once the contract ends, the service provider must delete any genetic data and destroy biological samples associated with that company. The bill also prevents direct to consumer genetic testing companies from discriminating against consumers who chose who choose to exercise the rights provided in the bill by changing such consumers different pricing different prices or denying certain services to such consumers. Direct to consumer genetic testing companies are not permitted to disclose consumer genetic data to an entity responsible for making decisions about health insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, or employment. That is so key. These companies also cannot disclose information about a consumer to a government entity unless presented with a search warrant or if the consumer expressly consents such a disclosure. Finally, the Genetic Information Privacy Act is enforced through the Vermont Consumer Protection Act and is effective 07/01/2026. Our committee recommends that the version passed by the house be amended in two instances which you will find on page twenty one twenty three in your calendar. First, the committee would was advised that we have a technical error that needed to be corrected in subsection d of section twenty one twenty four twenty one b. The amendment would clarify that it's the genetic data and biological samples not biometric data of consumers that shall not be transferred or stored outside The US without the express consent of the consumer. That's the first instance. And the second instance of amendment amends the enforcement language to require a sixty day cure period for any alleged violation of the law. A consumer who wants to file a civil action against the direct to consumer genetic testing company or service provider for an alleged violation must write to the company and provide them with sixty days to cure any alleged violation before filing a suit. This was an important compromise that we reached and which is how we got to the following five-zero vote. So we created a sixty day cure period to cure any alleged violation. We heard from 10 witnesses and and we heard from the Vermont forensic lab, which is in the Department of Public Safety. We heard from the AG's office. We heard from the head of government affairs, ancestry.com. We heard from the vice president of privacy and product company. We heard from Bridget Morris and Morris strategies, Herb Olson, the representative from Bristol, representative Ram Hinsdale, who's the sponsor of the bill, our own fabulous legislative counsel Rick Sagal, and the defender general, Matt Valerio, and Thomas Weiss, resident of Montpelier. And with that, with our committee vote of five zero, we ask for the senate support to further protect Vermonters and their most private data. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator, I think we have just had, some training that would suggest we don't use names on the floor just so that everybody highlights that we use positions and not individual names. The question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by committee on economic development? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. May I inquire the presenter of

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

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. I have a question about the first instance of amendment from the committee, which is on page twenty one twenty three, noting that the data should not be stored outside of the country or with, any designate any, country that's designated as a foreign adversary. That that makes sense to me. Part b that mentions that the transfer can only to to, you know, outside the country, can only happen with the expressed consent of the consumer. I am wondering about the that process. And just thinking about, the many times in people's lives when they, you know, something pops up that they have to agree to in order to access a service or, the terms or the conditions have changed and should I just click yes and people don't really think about that and thinking about how this could be slipped into something like that where people are perhaps not paying particularly close attention. So that's a concern of mine. So I'm wondering about that. I'm going to mention the one other concern I have as well, which is the part where it's not to be stored within a country that's designated as a foreign adversary, that there's a particular interest to not do that even if the consumer consents that there may be reasons why you just don't that that should not be an option. Curious if the senator could comment on that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Well, we agree on the second one. It should be, I agree. And on the first, I, I will I'm happy to defer and take a moment to talk to legislative council, the unnamed legislative council. Hard to find them if you know who you're looking. Anyway, I would say that I am very impressed. There are three major direct to consumer genetic testing companies. They are very clear in each one of the consent pieces as you go bit by bit through the consents that you have to do. They are very clear on what you're consenting to from what I've seen. For that for further for further answer I would ask for one moment of research.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator I think if you look down at the note on your desk there may be an answer there.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Oh, he's better yet.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: You

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: know, when you can't look at the your phone, you can look at a piece of paper. So thank you. Express consent. Is defined to avoid a simple checklist to, agree to all terms. And that is what I have noticed they do. They each term has a very specific section and you agree and consent to that very specific section.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you for that answer and, wondering about the, the possibility of still sending that data to be stored in a with a foreign adversary or I'm also happy to ask that question offline.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: May I take one moment to confirm what I thought I was the answer which is not to be stored in any territory outside of The United States.

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

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Can't do what Mitch was. Can't say it.

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

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

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Washington, you still have the floor.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. I believe my question was answered, and I understand it now that that is not an option, that both of these statements must be true. So I'm feeling satisfied, and I thank the reporter. Thank you.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, mister president. I have one question for the presenter of the amendment.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: I'm I'm looking at the as passed by the house version on page two there's a definition for dark pattern but as I look through the bill I don't see the phrase appear in the bill and I'm wondering if the senator can direct me to it. It.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Excuse me, Mr. President. I dark pattern is defined on line 12. Did you Sorry. I I guess I just didn't hear the question.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: Mister president, I do see the definition, but I don't see in the bill the phrase dark pattern. So I'm wondering, is it just an errant definition, or is it, somewhere in the bill that I haven't identified?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: This is a question from legislative council. So I need to take one moment to ask.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: Third reading would be fine, miss Chris.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Sorry. I just need to find out. So one moment.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The senator the the senator from Chittenden said if you could find out before third reading, that would be fine so we could keep the flow going here.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: You're right. I okay. Thank you. We will find out more about dark patterns.

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

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Question is shall the senate propose 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've proposed 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 six thirty nine. We have on the calendar for action h seven thirty nine, which was passed by the house

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans)]: on April 31.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: It was referred to the committee on agriculture, 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 twenty one twenty four of today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the expenditures of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as recommended by the committee on agriculture. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H seven thirty nine, an act relating to prohibiting the use and sale of the herbicide paraquat.

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

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Thank you, mister president. Mister president, I as a freshman senator, there are been times where I have been disappointed with the process of what we do not only in this chamber but in our committees. This bill and how it went through our committee, restored my faith. I will also say I a few weeks ago, I used the term making sausage. This was a beautiful Polska Kebasa. And and I will tell you, if you have not been to Buffalo, mister president, the assistant secretary of the senate, as well as the senior senator from Windsor, as well as myself who are all have lived in Buffalo, will take you to the Broadway Market on Easter weekend so you can have such a taste. And, h seven thirty nine establishes a statewide prohibition on the sale, use, and application of paraquat, a highly toxic herbicide while for limited temporary and restricted regulation exemptions. It also creates a reporting requirement to ensure legislative oversight at any continued use. I wanna go section by section. Section one subsection a definitions. This subsection defines paraquat comprehensively by listing its chemical form and identifiers, including paraquat ion, paraquat dichloron, paraquat paraquat sulfate, and all salts of paraquat. The purpose is to ensure that all known formulas of the herbicide are covered under the law preventing any regulatory loopholes based on chemical variations or naming differences. Subsection b, prohibition. This section establishes the core policy of the bill. It prohibits any person from selling, using, or applying Paraquat in Vermont. The only exception is when such activity is explicitly authorized by the secretary of agriculture, food, and markets under subsection c. In effect, this creates a default statewide bank, shifting Paraguay from general use to a lightly controlled exemption. Subsection c, authorized use. This subsection outlines a limited temporary exemption process. The secretary of agriculture may issue written permits allowing paraquat use only for fruit producing tree orchards, crops within the USDA berry and small fruit crops and groups. These exempt exemptions are time limited and expire no later than December 31. Permit conditions include applications must be certified and have complete required training within the past year. Permits are valid no more than three years, and permits must clearly be defined. This specific product, the approved uses and crops, the geo geographic scope down to the specific farm or fields, and the duration of the permit. Safety and environmental protections require it required drift mitigation measures consistent with the federal guidance. It also strictly adhere to label instructions to reduce application exposure, and the application is limited to targeted areas, three roles or by roles only. This subsection balances agricultural needs for certain specific crops with public health and environmental protections, while setting a clear sunset on use. Subsection d, reporting requirements. This subsection ensures transparency, legislative oversight, and continue stoppage when the bill is done. The secretary must submit an annual report detailing the amount of paraquat used, the dates used, location where it is applied. The report is due on December 15 of each year and is sub to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry, as well as the Senate Committee on Agriculture. This requirement allows the legislature to monitor trends, accept assess risk, and evaluate whether continued exemptions remain appropriate. Section two, effective date. This act takes effect on 11/01/2026. This delay is effective because it provides time for farmers and applicators to adjust practices. It also, it gives the agency of agriculture a time to establish the permitting process and outreach for compliance preparation. H seven thirty nine represents a significant policy change towards restricting the use of a highly hazardous herbicide, while recognizing limited short term agricultural needs. The bill establishes a clear pathway towards eventual phase out, incorporates strong safety controls, and ensures ongoing legislative oversight through the annual report. The committee on agriculture recommends the senate propose to the house that the bill is recommended and passed as recommended excuse me, as amended. It passed for a vote of five zero zero. I think it's important that I go through some of the witnesses that we had in committee. We had an owner of Peck Farm Orchards, a professor of neurology sources at UVM. We had an associate professor of UVM. We had various people that on different sides of this bill to really take an informed look at how we should do this, how this bill should come out of committee. Chair of committee of our committee, the senator from Essex, often often says how proud he is of the work that we have done. I am most proud of this work. We took a measured approach to how we came out of this how this bill came out of committee. And so I hope that the Senate will approve the amendment going forward. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Franklin District for the report of the committee on appropriations. Thank you, Mr. President. Senate appropriations review 08/07/1939. There was no fiscal note attached to this. We heard from, JFO. We heard from alleged counsel. And it was determined that,

[Senator John Morley III (Essex)]: this particular bill had a less

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: than de minimis effect on the on the state revenue appropriations I might add. So on a seven zero zero vote, the committee recommended the bill out of passage in concert both of amendment as recommended by the committee of excellence. Well, congratulations to the agriculture committee because I've never heard a bill come out with a less than de minimis amount. The question is, shall the senate propose 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, say aye. Senator from Essex.

[Senator John Morley III (Essex)]: Thank you, mister president. I hate to rise and take away from the excellent, report given by the vice chair of agriculture. But, this bill was a challenging bill for our committee and I am very always proud of the work that we do in our committee. This one right here could have easily gone a lot of different ways. It could have hung up on the wall, Certainly probably had enough votes for that. We could have voted in a different way or we could have ended up the way that we did. And I think that was the right way. I think that this bill came out the way that an audit, was certainly a lot of concern about this chemical in the state. And we were able to find a pathway forward to allow farmers to have an exemption through twelvethirty onetwo thousand and thirty and then to where this chemical will be banned forever in the state of Vermont. But just very, very proud of the way that the committee worked together. I've said to the committee through this process that we were gonna keep on taking testimony until

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: we

[Senator John Morley III (Essex)]: could all become very clear about the positions that we were able, that we were gonna take. And, I think that counting, the votes as the chair, we were probably two two, but little did the committee know that being a swing vote as the chair, I was really unsure of where I wanted to be. And so we kept on taking testimony until we all in fact were able to defend the positions that we were going to do including the chair in itself. And that's where the vote went. So yes, very proud of the center agriculture committee, very proud of the vice chair and his fine report, and, and I thank the body, for concurrent. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the senate propose 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. The ayes have it. You've proposed 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. You've ordered third reading. We will be passing over h one eight one six, which brings us to s one seventy three, which was passed by the house with proposal of amendment. The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? Which committee? I recognize the senator from Rutland. I was hoping someone wanted to speak to this. Oh, thank you.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Bit of a pop up. You may have a request to, defer until tomorrow. We just discussed this issue in committee. We do have a resolution, but I'm not prepared to do a floor summary. My apologies. I just didn't know this was even on the agenda. It's my, hit entirely.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We can we can not a problem to skip over it, senator. We will move on to GRH 10 joint resolution authorizing the 2026 Green Mountain Girls State Educational Program to use the state house. This resolution has been read and is set forth in yesterday's journal and is before you. The question is, shall the senate adopt the joint house resolution in concurrence? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and we have adopted the resolution. We now have on the calendar for action h two twenty. It was introduced on 02/19/2025. It was referred to the committee on health and welfare, which reports oh, I will start over. We have on the calendar for action today, h two seventy introduced on 02/19/2025. It was referred to the committee on health and welfare, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that it ought to pass in concurrence. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H two seventy, an act relating to confidentiality in peer support sessions for emergency service providers.

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

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: Yes. Thank you, mister president. I thought you were gonna pass me over for

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: a second time today.

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: So if I could, I just like to provide a little bit of background for the senators just Elaine's personal experiences that relate to this bill.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: You're right. All

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: of our emergency providers actually exposed themselves to some pretty horrific events over their tenure in their service. I personally spent thirty five years on a small town fire department. And during that period, and I could relate to a number of incidents, but I'll just talk about two. Early in my career in my volunteer service, got called to a house fire. When we arrived, we were told that there was a young boy still in the house. I was one of two that went in to find that individual. That individual was had second and third degree burns over two thirds of his body. The skin was literally peeling off of the young boy. It was quite a horrific event for all of us who responded and we didn't have an actual peer support system. We always, when we came back from an incident, gathered and talked through what we had seen and what we had experienced. In another incident, we got called to a vehicle off the road on the interstate. And I and one of the other firefighters, the car was down in the ditch in the median snow covered. We filed through the snow, got down to the car, car was locked. We looked in the window, the guy's head was back and his brain matter was on the back of the seat. That was as far as we went and we realized what the event was and called for coroner and state police. But that's a small town, 1,200 people. But that happens throughout our state and people are exposed to some pretty horrific events. And what this bill is centered on is peer support for our emergency providers and for confidentiality in in discussing these things that they are exposed to as a way of trying to deal with the impact it has on each individual.

[Senator John Morley III (Essex)]: So with that,

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: I'd like to then present the section by section of the bill. Section one adds to eighteen seventy two fifty seven C, confidentiality peer support for emergency service providers. Section a has definitions. It adds various definitions including emergency service provider, which includes firefighters, EMS, paramedics, law enforcement, correction, officials, officers, nine one one call takers, emergency communication dispatchers, ski patrol, mental health provider workers, in a crisis setting, medical examiners. Peer support communication means oral written communication, notes, reports, or records arriving out of a peer support service. Peer support session means an individual group peer support session provided by an emergency service peer support specialist or emergency service provider who have been involved in, potentially traumatizing events or who are suffering from, chronic emotional stress due to their employment or volunteer services. Emergency service peer support specialist means an individual who meets one of the following, has been designated by an employer to serve on an employee based peer support program or designated by the peer support program to act as a peer resource, has received training in providing peer support to emergency service providers involved in potentially traumatizing events or is otherwise a member of an organization and organized Vermont peer support program. Section b, protection for peer support communication a, except as provided in section d of peer support communication b, during a peer support session led by an emergency service peer support specialist is not allowed to be disclosed by a session participant. Section b, except as provided in section d, a peer support communication relating to peer session led by an emergency service peer support specialist between a specialist and peer support program staff member or between peer support program staff members shall not be disclosed by a party participating in the communication. In section two, it is public record act exemption. Written peer support communications are exempt from public inspection copying under the public record act and exempt itself, excuse me, and compliance itself is not subject to regular review. Section c, protection for peer support communicate communications in legal proceedings. Except as provided in subsection d, a peer support communication not, may be a participant of a peer support session led by an emergency service peer support specialist is not admissible in a judicial administrative or arbit arbitration proceeding including during discovery. Pro prohibition on disclosure do not apply to knowledge acquired by an emergency service provider from observations made during the course of employment or volunteer service or information acquired by the emergency service provided during the course of employment. And then we move to section d, the confidentiality exemptions. And one that says confidentiality protection for peer support sessions and between emergency service peer support specialists and or program do not apply with regard to the following information if provided to an individual designated to receive this information as part of their normal professional duties. Any threat of suicide, homicide made by a session participant or information contrary relating to a threat of suicide or homicide. Information related to abuse of a child or a vulnerable adult, any admission of conduct likely to pause a pause a risk to public safety or any admission of a plan to commit a crime. So section two a, nothing in this act prohibits communication between emergency service, peer support specialists regarding a peer support session or between an emergency service peer support specialist and another peer support program staff member. And B, nothing in this act prohibits an emergency service peer support specialist or an emergency service provider participating in a peer support session from disclosing personal experience to the extent the disclosure is consistent with HIPAA. So this is on immunity of civil liability, creates immunity from civil liability for the employee, employer, emergency service, peer support provider, or peer support program regarding any injury or damages arising from the provision of peer support services or any disclosure made unless the conduct of the employer emergency service peer support provider or peer support program constitute gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct. In the section two. The effective date would be 07/01/2020, '26. The committee, heard from the Office of Ledge Council, sponsor of the bill, the Burlington Fire Department, and the professional firefighters of Vermont. The vote out of committee was five zero zero, and we would ask for your support of this bill. Thank you.

[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? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. First, I'd I'd like to say that this bill is a continuation of the work that your committee on health and welfare started a couple of sessions ago with then Commissioner Baker of Department of Corrections. And we you heard the testimony and the examples given by the presenter of the bill and how powerful that is. But you can also imagine the distress that that can cause in someone who is participating in an emergency situation. What in in previous years, we've had folks come in who were wardens, police, state police, fire, and they've been in tears in our room because of their experiences. Having a peer support program is an addition to the current process for a large council that meets every year to look at what's needed to help folks who volunteer their time to help people in dire situations. Oh, thank you, mister president. I just wanted to say that this is a very important bill for people who work in our communities every day.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of H two seventy. We have on the calendar for action H three eighty five introduced on 02/26/2025. It was referred to the committee on finance, 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 three eighty five, an act relating to remedies and protections for victims of coarse debt.

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

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. I know we're getting well beyond lunchtime, and this was a 30 page bill, but I will try to be, quick and fast in my reporting and also try not to leave anything important out. I'm proud to be here to report on h three eighty five. It's a bill that provides protections for victims of coerced death and gives our community institutions an additional tools to support their clients in protecting their accounts. This legislation is the product of really careful work. Following Act 23, which was signed into law in May, the Department of Financial Regulation convened two study committees and each produced a detailed report that were very helpful to me in working on this. One, detailed coerced debt and the other regard, regarded, bank transaction holds. And throughout this session, we've continued to work closely with Vermont lending institutions, attorneys, advocates to craft this this legislation and to work with the house. As a matter of fact, the draft that came to us from the house's draft 1.17. So you can see that there was a lot of work done over time. Coerced debt. What is it? It is a form of financial abuse. It is used to control survivors and to prevent them from seeking safety or independence. It occurs when an abusive partner, a trafficker, or a caregiver uses force, threats, or fraud to open credit cards, take out loans, rack up charges in someone else's name. Those are all examples of coerced debt. H385 recognizes a simple but critical principle. Debt created through abuse is not legitimate debt, and survivors should not be forced to carry it for the rest of their lives. Seven states, including Texas, New York, Minnesota, Illinois, and Maine, have all passed coerced debt protections. Following their lead, h three eighty five establishes clear standards and a fair process. It includes safeguards against misuse by both debtors and creditors. The core step provisions can be found in section one and two of the bill. Section one contains most of the core step provisions. It establishes a new subchapter under Chapter 63 of Title IX. This is the Vermont's Consumer Protection Act. The bill begins with Chapter 2495A, which sets out several key definitions used throughout the entire bill. First, the bill describes several types of documents that may be used to support a victim's claim of coerced death. These forms of adequate documentation include a report filed with law enforcement dealing detailing the coerced death, a court order finding the debt was coerced, and a sworn certification from a qualified third party professional defined later in the bill. Coerced debt is defined to include both secured and unsecured debt incurred as a result of domestic abuse, child abuse, trafficking, or elder abuse. Coerced debt occurs when a perpetrator uses a victim's personal information without their knowledge or when they force, threaten, intimidate, or otherwise pressure a victim to incur a debt. Think of secured debt, if you haven't heard that term before, such as a vehicle loan. The bill preserves the creditors right to repossess the collateral. Mortgages and commercial loans are excluded from the definition of coerced debt. The bill defines creditor to include any person or entity that owns or collects a debt. The bill defines debtor at in this context the debtor is the person who owes the coerced debt or a survivor of domestic abuse, child abuse, human trafficking, or abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. A qualified third party professional. This includes individuals with specific licensure or training such as law enforcement officers, attorneys, health care providers, crisis workers who routinely work with victims of abuse. The bill includes a template for the sworn certification these professionals may provide. Finally, the bill defines a statement of coerced debt. This is the written statement that a debtor submits to the creditor identifying the disputed debt and describing to the extent possible how the debt was incurred incurred. The statement must include the identity and contact information of the perpetrator unless the victim signs a sworn statement. That disclosure would likely result in future sorry let me rephrase that. The statement must include the identity and contact information of the perpetrator unless the victim signs a sworn statement that disclosure would likely result in future abuse to themselves or an immediate family member. Obviously wanting to keep that person safe in this situation. Chapter 2495B establishes that causing another person to incur coerced debt is prohibited, establishing it as a civil offense under Vermont law. 2495c outlines the process a debtor may use to assert a claim of coerced debt. You can follow along on if you all got that bill, you can follow along. A creditor who needs additional information may request it from the debtor using model form a one, which is included in the bill. Once a creditor receives a complete claim, a statement of coerced debt with supporting documentation that the bill requires the creditor to take several actions within a defined timeline. So within ten business days of receiving a complete claim the creditor will cease collection attempts and notify the credit reporting agency the debt is disputed. Within thirty days, the creditor will review the documentation and determine whether to accept or reject the victim's coerced debt claim. And then within five days of concluding its review, the creditor shall notify the debtor in writing of its determination and must provide a good faith basis for such determination. If the creditor accepts it, the victim's not liable for the remaining debt and the creditor must request the debt be removed from the victim's credit report. The creditor may then move to pursue payments from the perpetrator of the coerced debt. If the creditor rejects the claim the creditor may recommence collection activities but may not sell or transfer the debt to another party. There are provisions requiring that the creditor to protect the confidentiality of the debtors personal information and a debtor may withhold the identity and contact information of the perpetrator if the debtor signs a sworn statement that such disclosure is likely to result in abuse. To the debtor or to a member of the debtor's immediate family again trying to keep that person safe from the perpetrator. In addition, subsection f specifies that with respect to debt secured by tangible property, a creditor remain retains the right to enforce a security interest through repossessions, surrender, or court ordered seizure of the subject, of the subject collateral. Chapter twenty four ninety five d establishes civil legal remedies available to victims and creditors in coerced death cases. This is where it's detailed in this section. If a creditor brings legal action against the victim of course that the creditor must prove by a preponderance of the evidence meaning more likely than not that the debt was not coerced. And the bill specifies that a debtor may establish a prima facie case that the debt is coerced by submitting to the court a statement of coerced debt and adequate documentation. And prima facie is a legal term that generally means a party has provided through evidence to support a claim, such that it will not be dismissed by the court. Once established, it is then incumbent upon the creditor to prove the debt is not coerced. The bill also creates a cause of action against the perpetrator allowing creditors to seek repayment from the individual who actually caused the debt to be incurred and allowing debtors to recover any payments that make that they made on the coerced debt. To protect the safety of survivors in civil legal in the civil legal process, the bill allows victims to request procedural safeguards such as ceiling court records or other protective measures to prevent retaliation. The bill specifies that the perpetrator is not a necessary party to an action between a creditor and a debtor, meaning their participation is not required. However, any court finding of course debt is not binding on a perpetrator. A separate legal action directly involving the perpetrator would need to be commenced. If I were still teaching, I would ask if there are any questions at this point, but I will continue. The bill also establishes statutes of limitations as follows. A debtor has six years to sue a perpetrator from the date the debtor discovered or reasonably should have discovered the coerced debt or six years from the date the abuse ceased. A creditor has six years to sue the perpetrator after becoming aware of the course that for six years from the date the creditor received notice of the identity of the perpetrator. Chapter twenty four ninety five e specifies that any person knowingly and materially violates the subchapter commits an unfair and deceptive act under Vermont's existing consumer protection statutes. It also specifies that the attorney general has authority to investigate and begin a civil action for any violations. 2495f ensures that financial and personally identifying information related to a claim of coerced death remains confidential as does any information subject to privilege protections under law unless waived. In addition, such confidential information acquired by a public body is not subject to public inspection under Vermont's Public Records Act. Section two amends Vermont's existing credit reporting accuracy dispute procedures to ensure that disputes stemming from coerced debt claims are handled consistently within that framework. As such, consistent with federal law, it requires a credit reporting agency to reinvestigate any debt that is adversely reported on the debtor's credit report with the credit reporting agency credit when reporting agency is presented with a claim of coerced death. Section three is a technical correction to nine BSA twenty four eighty k updating references to individuals and to an amended statue, statute, which is the, identity theft statute. So section four of the bill transition here, pertains to bank transaction holds. This permits a bank to impose a transaction hold in the event of suspected financial exploitation. It strengthens the abilities of Vermont's banks, credit unions and other financial financial institutions to protect their customers from increasingly sophisticated frauds. In 2024 alone, the federal government received nine seventy three complaints of scams and cyber frauds from Vermonters, totaling more than 11,000,000 in losses. This works out to an average loss of 12,000 per victim. We know that many frauds go unreported due to embarrassment, shame, or continued inability to recognize the scam. However, Vermonters are much more likely to disclose these losses to their financial institutions than they are to federal partners. Accordingly, we have worked closely with representatives of these institutions to provide them with additional tools to protect their customers who are our neighbors, our constituents, sometimes ourselves. Section four of the bill establishes a new subchapter under chapter 200 of title eight, which pertains to consumer protections under Vermont's banking laws. Section 10.801 contains the findings and intent, 10.802 contains the definitions, the financial institutions that are given authority to protect customers under the sub chapter are referred to as covered entities which refers to subdivisions in this title that define banks, trust companies, savings institutions, and credit unions as well as their subsidiaries and affiliates. Associated third parties are defined as any individual a customer has authorized to be contacted by the customer's covered entity, a family member of a customer whom a covered entity reasonably believes is closely associated with the customer, a co owner, authorized signatory or beneficiary on a customer's account, or an attorney, trustee, conservator, guardian, or any individual holding power of attorney. 10.803, in brief, allows for financial institutions to take protective actions if they believe a customer is the victim of financial exploitation, which is defined under Section 10.8 two(five). These protective actions include delaying or refusing transactions, withdrawals, and disbursements, as well as changes in ownership, beneficiary designations, or other authorizations that the financial institution suspects are the result of financial exploitation. Financial institutions are not required to take these actions but may use its sole discretion based on the information available at the time. The authority comes with an expiration date detailed in subdivision C1. The hold can last up to fifteen business days but it can be cancelled as soon as the covered entity is satisfied that the transaction will not result in financial exploitation. The hold is also lifted upon receipt of a court order directing the release of funds. Subdivision C2 allows for the financial institution to extend that fifteen business days hold by another fifteen days if the institution's financial exploitation concerns have not been mitigated. Again, this authority would be overruled by a court order ordering the release of funds. And I do want to emphasize here that the language of the bill clearly states that these transactions are subject to these delays. Specific transactions not all account activity. So customers that an institution believes are victims of financial exploitation will not have their entire account frozen. Day to day expenses, automated bill payments, standard activities continue unaffected by the, protective action. Under subsection D, it is made clear that any protective action the institution chooses to take is in line with applicable state and federal laws governing banking and commerce. And ten eight zero four allows for a covered entity to contact an associated third party should the financial institution believe that the customer is a victim of financial exploitation. The legislation limits the financial institution to providing only that information which is necessary to discuss the specific transaction that is suspected to be fraudulent. Covered entities are also given protection if they choose not to disclose their concerns to a third party, if they suspect a third party may be involved in the financial exploitation. Ten eight zero five provides covered entities immunity from civil criminal and administrative liability liability for any actions taken or not taken under this law. Ten eight zero six is a rule of statutory construction and specifies that the provisions of this new subchapter are to be construed liberally to encourage covered entities to take reasonable protective actions to prevent the financial exploitation of their customers. Sections five and six are the reporting sections, and these are important. We talked about them quite a bit in committee. Section five calls for the Commissioner of Financial Regulation to work with industry representatives to provide data on the number and dollar amount of suspicious transactions. We want to know what's happening and we want to get educated on what's out there. The report is due by 01/15/2027 and annually thereafter. Section six calls for the Commissioner of Financial Regulation to work with industry representatives and service providers to assess the utilization of the provisions of this relate of this bill related to coerced debt, and that's due 11/15/2029. Section seven details the effective dates of the sections of the bill and the technical correction in Section three and the bank transaction hold sections including the DFR report take effect on passage. The coerced debt provisions in Sections one, two and six take effect 07/01/2028 and this timeline gives lending institutions, service providers and state agencies time to conduct outreach, update systems and prepare for implementation. This bill, it is comprehensive here and accessible. It gives us protections that can promote safety for victims and the integrity of our financial institution. A lot of parties came together to to make this, work. The committee heard from a broad range of stakeholders. We heard from the, president of the Association of Vermont Credit Unions. We heard from the president of the Vermont Bankers Association. We heard from the vrp project director at Vermont legal aid we heard from a staff attorney at Vermont legal aid we heard from the department of financial regulation the Vermont network against domestic and Sexual Violence. We heard from AARP, from legislative council, and our vote in committee was seven zero zero, mister president. I also believe this bill was in judiciary, so the chair of judiciary might wanna speak to it as well. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Thank you, mister president. I'll keep this brief. Yes. Age three eighty five started off in the senate judiciary, and we're appreciative that General Finance, was willing to take possession after we after we had our initial walk through. During that walk through, we realized that essentially just pages 13 through 17 were in our jurisdiction. Those were the sections as we heard that established court procedures, the evidence threshold, and who has to meet that, meet that threshold to prove their case. And after reviewing the relevant sections, senate judiciary was supportive of the language as written. We had no further recommendations and by a straw poll, the committee was supportive of the bill and we asked for the senate support.

[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 say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You've ordered third reading of h three eighty five. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, mister president. With that, I will move that pending announcements to send standard adjournment until 11AM Thursday, 05/07/2026.

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

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate finance started ten minutes ago. So I would ask the committee to get you pizza and ice cream and come to

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: committee as quickly as possible.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Senator from Washington. The senate appropriations will not be meeting this afternoon, but the senate conferees on the budget should go to the senate appropriations committee and fall together. Senator from Rutland.

[Senator John Morley III (Essex)]: Thank you, mister president. Government operations will meet at 01:45.

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

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate institutions will meet at two.

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

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: 01:40.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: 01:40.

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

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: At Room 10.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Seeing none, the senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate stand in adjournment until 11AM, Thursday, 05/07/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. We'll stand in adjournment until 11AM, Thursday, 05/07/2026.