Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: I'm right. That's what I right.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden District; President Pro Tempore; Chair, Judiciary)]: Nope. Yep.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We'll observe a moment of silence in lieu of a devotional. Thank you. Are there any announcements? Seeing none. Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Mister president, I would move that h seven seventy two be recommitted to the Committee on Economic Development with the Senate Judiciary Committee's report attached.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The senator from Windham has moved that the senate suspended rules in order to Pending entry to the notice calendar. The senator moves that the rules be suspended in order to commit h seven seven two to the committee on economic development. Are you ready for the question? With the report intact, are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Ayes have it. The motion carries. We have H907 being on the calendar for notice in carrying an appropriation under rule 31 is referred to the committee on appropriations. Orders of the day. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden District; President Pro Tempore; Chair, Judiciary)]: Thank you, mister president. I was hoping to begin with the third readings and then move back to the topic account.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Requires a small amount of shuffling of script, but we can do that, senator from Chittenden Central. We have h two seventy for third reading. 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 two seventy, an act relating to confidentiality in peer support sessions for emergency service providers.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: And the question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it, and we passed h two seventy seven in concurrence with proposal of amendment. We now have h three eighty five. 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 three eighty five, an act relating to remedies and protections for victims of coarse debt.

[Lieutenant 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 we've passed h three eighty five in concurrence with proposal of amendment. We now have h six thirty nine for third reading. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor; Majority Leader)]: Thank you, mister president. We had a question yesterday during our genetic data privacy bill about dark patterns and where they appeared in the bill and I would just like to point out that they occur on page three in number eight when we

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden District; President Pro Tempore; Chair, Judiciary)]: talk about express consent. An express consent cannot be inferred from inaction. Agreement obtained through the use of dark patterns does not constitute express consent. So my understanding of this is you can't manipulate consumers into agreeing to something they couldn't wouldn't agree to.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor; Majority Leader)]: So I think this addresses the concern of the senator from Chittenden Central, and we continue to ask for your support protecting Vermonter's genetic data privacy. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: 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 six thirty nine, an act relating to genetic data privacy.

[Lieutenant 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. Ayes have it. We've passed h six thirty nine in concurrence with proposal of amendment. We have h seven thirty nine. The question is, are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading.

[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.

[Lieutenant 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, aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it. We passed h seven thirty nine in concurrence with proposal of amendment. We now have h nine fifty two. 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 fifty two, an act relating to capital construction and state bonding budget adjustment.

[Lieutenant 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? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Thank you, mister president. I have answers to the questions that were posed yesterday. First, I just ran upstairs. Senator Hardy, I, sent or I, provided information from the about the first question about, general funding for courthouses. And the Newport Courthouse, which is the one that's in the capital bill, is a state owned courthouse. So, it's not, relevant to the to the county courthouses. The second question

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden District; President Pro Tempore; Chair, Judiciary)]: I

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: would like to take a

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: very

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: well, I see we have a lot to to that's. There's a lot going on I think a very short recess and get my notes.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We will take a brief recess. Senate please come to order. Senator Perchlik Chittenden.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. After having consulted with the chair of institutions, it seems, it would be a good moment to pass over and come back later in the session to this third reading, which I believe would bring us to the top of the calendar.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We will postpone action on h nine fifty two until later in the orders of the day without objection. We have on the calendar for action h eight sixteen, which was passed by

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: the

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: house on 03/20/2026. It was referred to the committee on health and welfare, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the senate propose to the house that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page twenty one twenty five of today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill. H

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: eight sixteen, an act relating to regulating the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of mental health services.

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

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, mister president, and I promise I will not be as gruesome as I was yesterday in my reporting. I had thought about, talking about the night we spent between two and 4AM picking up frozen chickens from, the roadway, but I didn't think that would quite have the same impact as the others. So talking about h eight one sixteen, an act related to regulating the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of mental health services. You heard just a few days ago from the senator from Burlington about AI and its interaction with health care services and the need to be sure that we are not curtailing its beneficial uses, but at the same time protecting all of us from the harm that could cause by allowing AI to operate on its own. And this is particularly pertinent to mental health services. We probably all saw on the news in recent years how some young people through chat box and others have accessed in dealing with mental health issues and have actually ended up in in true tragedies an entity from offering or providing mental health services through AI without the review and approval of a mental health professional. But it does, as I say, allow a mental health professional to use AI in their, practice as long as it is the actual decisions are done by the actual health care professional. So with that, I'll go through the sections of the bill. Section one purpose, it says the purpose is to safeguard individuals seeking mental health services from psychological harm by ensuring that mental health services are delivered by mental health professionals and not independently by AI systems. Section two amends three b s a one twenty five a, by adding engaging in prohibited use of AI to the existing list of unprofessional conduct by certain OPR regulated licensed individuals. Section three, ads 18 b s a seventeen fifty five prohibits use of artificial intelligence, a ads definition for AI mental health professionals, mental health services, therapeutic communications, and therapeutic decisions. B prohibits an individual corporation or other entity from offering or providing mental health services through AI without the review and approval of a mental health professional. And c violations of this section, are deemed a violation of the Consumer Protection Act enforced by the Office of Attorney General. Each violation has a civil penalty of $10,000. This does not prohibit supplemental use. Other applications, statutory, excuse me, this does not prohibit other applicable statutory laws from being enforced. This section does not preclude a health professional operating within their scope of practice from utilizing AI tools that are HIPAA compliant so long as the mental health professional reviews and approves any mental health service. Section four amends 26 b s a thirteen fifty four board of medical practice, unprofessional conduct and adds, engaging in, prohibited use of AI to existing list of unprofessional conduct as certain board of medical practice registered licensees. And section five reports, use of AI is, regulated professions requires o p I OPR and the Board of Medical Practice to submit a report to the general assembly containing recommendations for regulations of the use of AI by regulated professionals by 01/1527 and section six, effective date is on passage. The health and welfare committee voted five zero zero on this bill. We heard from the reporter of the bill, the Vermont Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the director of the office of professional regulation, and the secretary of state's office, and we asked for the senate's concurrence on the passage of this bill. Thank you.

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

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Mister president, just so that the chamber knows, I will be coming in tomorrow with a amendment on third reading, regarding the private right of action and clarifying some of the language and addressing. It's on page twenty two sixty two subsection b where it says an individual corporation or other entity. Just wanted to provide the heads up that that will be in tomorrow. Just wanted to follow-up a bit more with the committee and thank you.

[Lieutenant 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 proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on health and welfare. 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 eight sixteen. S one seventy three was passed by the house with proposal of amendment. The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? Recognize the senator from Rutland.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. So, reporting today on, s one seventy three and I relating to vocational rehabilitation. So first, the the big picture, I think will re familiarize everyone with this bill. S one seventy three was passed unanimously by the Senate. It sought to address concerns about the current vocational rehabilitation benefit under Vermont's workers compensation laws, including the elimination of the initial screening requirement and the creation of a working group. The House Committee returned a strike all amendment which retains the current initial screening requirement and increases the scope of questions for the working group to include the analysis of whether the initial screening requirement should be retained. The house also added a section upgrading registered work apprenticeships. The bill now has a very strong focus on registered apprenticeship technical corrections. Following act 55 of 2023 registered apprenticeship, related to registered apprenticeship system, the Department of Labor worked with the Office of Racial Equity to examine ways to better incorporate language promoting equity, diversity, and apprenticeship programs and expand participation from underserved communities. The resulting change addresses equity, clarity, and federal alignment. The key apprenticeship program improvements include expanding demographic collection data collection to better identify and support underserved populations, adding clarification about which fields in apprenticeship agreements are required and which ones are optional, strengthening the apprenticeship advisory board's role in addressing equity and building partnerships with historically marginalized communities, and establishing a pilot for youth apprenticeship programs that allows Vermont to develop best practice before statewide implementation. These adjustments make the apprenticeship program legally compliant, operationally clear, and accessible to all Vermonters who could benefit from the apprenticeship programs. The changes also position Vermont to collect meaningful data on program participation, identify gaps in service delivery, and improve outreach to communities that have been underrepresented in skilled trades and professional apprenticeships. The effective date remains 07/01/2026. A new title after passage, would be amended to read an act relating to vocational rehabilitation and committee received a testimony from the Vermont Department of Labor, director of policy and legislative affairs, and the Vermont Association of Justice. The voting committee was five zero zero. The economic development committee welcomes the full chamber to support s one seventy three. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden District; President Pro Tempore; Chair, Judiciary)]: We

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: have on the calendar for action s three twenty nine introduced on 04/15/2026, it was referred to the commission committee on judiciary, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page twenty one forty eight of today's calendar, and that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H three twenty nine, an act relating to criminal procedures involving firearms.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Chittenden District, senator Baruth, for the report of the committee on judiciary.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden District; President Pro Tempore; Chair, Judiciary)]: Thank you, mister president. S three twenty nine has a long lineage and a short history and I will explain that as follows. Senators will remember that Burlington twice voted overwhelmingly for a charter change to allow guns to be prohibited in Burlington City Bonds and those votes were taken in 2014 and 2025 and as I say there was overwhelming support within the city of Burlington for that safety measure. In this building, that charter has had a dismal history of being stopped in the house each time it has made it out of the center. So after thinking about the possibilities for trying to continue the work on that charter, one of the, I would say, persistent allegations about the charter was that it would create a patchwork of gun laws. In other words, it shouldn't just be one municipality. If we were gonna do this, it should be for the whole state. So I began to consider whether or not a ban in bars statewide made sense, talk to the relevant stakeholders on both sides of the issue, talk with the committee chair and with the rules committee. And so what you are looking at in 03/29 is the material from H606 which came to us earlier in the session from the House with now the addition of what was originally the Burlington Charter language but is now a statewide prohibition on guns and bars. So again in 03/29 you have language almost identical to language we have passed out of the chamber before that is the language around prohibiting guns and bars and you have with very few changes the language that came over from the House in 06/2006. That language has primarily to do with mirroring federal legislation, and making a few changes to our statutes regarding, people with guns who are violent criminals. So with that in mind, that we are looking at, a new a new bill that contains material we have seen before, I will go into, 03/29 itself. So probably best to have senators immediately go to the calendar page twenty two seventy one and I will walk through section by section and annotate as I go. Section one of this bill makes a few amendments to existing Vermont statute limiting the possession of firearms by persons convicted of certain violent crime. All the states all 50 have a version of this we put this in place in 2015 and we are now nuancing it a bit. So senators will see that at the top of 2272, as currently stands, the statute has a misdemeanor penalty if you have been convicted of a violent crime, are prohibited from having a gun, and are found to be in possession. That is a misdemeanor. What we're adding here is a second tier which is a felony, and you'll see there under subsection two for a second or subsequent offense be imprisoned not more than three years or a fine not more than $5,000 or both. Now the thinking there is that in order to trigger the felony, a person would have to be convicted three times. First of a violent crime, which makes them prohibited from having a gun, then twice breaking that prohibition. So the committee felt that, an enhanced penalty made sense given that it's a pattern of three convictions. Then down below that you'll notice that there are some drafting convention changes shall being made to, read Firearms does not. And then, if you go to page two thousand two seventy three the other change that we have made in this section of the title is what counts as a violent crime to prohibit someone from having a gun in the first place. So if you look down at the bottom of 20 two-seventy three there's a long paragraph involving drug offense primarily and we had a productive discussion in committee about whether dispensing which is separate from selling or trafficking So these are just differences in kind. So dispensing means bringing a prohibited substance somewhere and giving it to people not in exchange for money. So for instance you will notice that the drug ecstasy is one of these prohibited substances if you brought three ecstasy pellets to a party and pass them out you could be charged with dispensing but not with selling or traffic. Selling would take a larger amount and you'd have to be asking for money in return and trafficking would be a higher amount still. So you'll see that dispensing has been removed in other words you could not lose your gun rights by dispensing a drug but you could lose them by selling or

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: trafficking. Drug.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden District; President Pro Tempore; Chair, Judiciary)]: On the next page we are here adding a class of person who would be prohibited from possessing a firearm So you'll see under 4017A fugitives from justice, persons subject to final relief from abuse or stalking, persons charged with certain offenses and a prohibition therefore on the possession of firearms. You'll notice down midway through the page we are now prohibiting persons in need of treatment and persons in need of treatment are already prohibited under federal law from possessing firearms. We are mirroring the federal law here, and a quick definition of a person in need of treatment is someone who as a result of a mental illness or deficiency becomes a danger to themselves or others and by danger we mean, danger of violence against themselves or another person. So if someone in the course of their justice involved path is found to be a person in need of treatment or later a person in need of further treatment, they can be prohibited as long as they are classed that way they can be prohibited from obtaining a firearm. You'll notice down at the bottom of the page 5A Roman numeral two If they are the subject of a hospitalization order, that is a temporary prohibition and only lasts as long as the hospitalization order itself. Flipping the page, at the top you will see that if someone has had their firearm rights taken away as a result of these prohibitions, they can petition the state to have them restored at a later date. So it is not necessarily a permanent prohibition but they will there is a process that must be followed. You'll see again that we have an enhanced penalty for breaking this and again someone would have had to be justice involved prohibited and then break that prohibition twice to reach that standard. Down below, under firearm transfers, this was, an interesting discussion that committee had. The senator from Chittenden North, I believe initiated it, and the senator from Franklin, I believe, proposed the language here. What it does is we currently have in statute a seventy two hour waiting period. And the idea behind that the senators who were here would remember was that, in order to speak to the problem of people who either, because they're in a deep depression or they're deeply angered might run out, get a gun and commit violence. We established a three day waiting period to cool off was was the thinking. So in committee it was raised that if someone orders a firearm online that must be shipped to an FFL and that shipping process will no doubt take three days or more. So the suggestion was made could we make it easier for someone to you know move through that seventy two hour waiting period by saying we'll include the shipping time and that can count for the three day waiting period. So just to make it clear, I initially was a little hesitant about this. I was worried it would weaken our protections under the seventy two hour waiting period. I came around because if senators were looked bottom of 2275, the transferee must provide a receipt and documentation of a verified tracking. So there's a standard means by which they would prove when they ordered the gun and how long it took to get to the FFL and then if that waiting period has been satisfied by the shipping period, then you go to the FFL, you have an immediate background check and theoretically you can take your gun home with you in that same trip. So it is, eliminating one of the objections originally to the waiting period which is that somebody might have to make two trips, if they had to wait three days. This would allow people who order online to have a more efficient route to completing that safety check. So over on 02/1976, in 2018 we prohibited bump stocks here called bump fire stocks. We are now adding legislation about machine guns and this is again simply mirroring federal law. So it is against federal law to have a machine gun, but this will allow our state's attorneys to lodge charges if they need to and our justice system to pick up that same allegation. So just to be clear under subsection two the definition of machine gun that is word for word from the federal law and the second sentence simply makes clear that under current law machine guns are prohibited federally but you can apply to the federal government for dispensation to own a machine gun. There is a long process but I have spoken to at least one person who has been through it and who does own a machine gun legally. With that said, if senders will go to 02/1977 they will see language that is almost exactly the same as that which we passed out last year. In that moment it was the language of substance in the Burlington Charter change. So it was prohibiting guns and bars in Burlington. This is a statewide version of the state legislation. So you will see right up top, a person a person shall not knowingly possess a firearm on premises where alcohol is licensed to be served. And at this point, this discussion is old enough that I feel I don't need to say this, but the logic here is that if people are voluntarily going to a place to become intoxicated, that is their purpose for going to a bar. And yes, of course, there are individuals who are in bars who aren't necessarily drinking, but in large part that's why bars exist to offer mild intoxication to people within legal limits. But any amount of intoxication affects judgment and so therefore the idea is we don't need firearms deadly weapons in the same space where people are going to consume alcohol. Now this is not a partisan idea. It is not, I don't believe, a crazy idea. There are 14 states that prohibit guns in bars, and among those are Oklahoma, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Texas. And Texas has had a long standing prohibition on any place that serves 51% or more alcohol, you cannot have a gun. It is, not considered in those very deeply red states. It is not considered something that makes people vulnerable or considered anti gun rights. It is common sense. I would argue the same here. So just to clarify, if senators will look down, it does not apply to second class licensed premises. So those would be places like a convenience store. They sell alcohol, but you don't consume it there. So they are not roped in under this. First and third class licenses are, but you'll notice a couple of prohibitions here. Sidewalks or public highways that pass through an outside premises for which a licensee holds an outside consumption permit. So in the summertime, many, bars and restaurants have an outside cafe in Burlington and in Cradleboro and other places. There are sidewalks that pass through those areas. Those sidewalks are not prohibited but on either side where people are consuming alcohol they would be granted, and there are a couple other carve outs including a dining car etc. Then anytime we pass a prohibition, for sensitive spaces and, I'll just pause to say that sensitive spaces have been upheld by the Supreme Court as places that it makes sense to prohibit guns, and among those are courthouses, schools, and now hospitals. And in all of those sensitive spaces provisions, there are carve outs for law enforcement, for military, national guard, government officers, and agents, but crucially only if they are in performance of their duties. So the fact that you are, let's say, a law enforcement officer, if you are out just with your family at night, you are not carved out here, you would be prohibited, but if you are in pursuit of your duties under any of these three exceptions you would be allowed to carry your firearm as you perform your duty. One other important provision at the bottom if you are the holder of the license or the owner or operator of the premises, you may also carry legally within your premises. Your workers and other people who frequent the place may not, but given that it's your, private property, we carve that out as well. And on page twenty two seventy eight, mister president, if a person in need of treatment or in further treatment is prohibited from having a gun, it must be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the NICS system, and that makes sure that we don't fall through the cracks and have somebody who can go and buy a gun when in fact they've been legally prohibited. So, before I ask for questions, president, I I wanna just say one thing and that is that, I am someone who supports in almost every situation traditional hunting, target shooting, and self defense. I do believe very strongly that there are places where guns create more danger than they prevent. And so when we ban people from having a gun in this chamber, no one is allowed to have a gun in this chamber. When we ban guns in airports, when we ban guns in schools where our children go, we are doing that for an overriding reason, and that is that we truly believe that the possibility for violence and violent death is greater with the firearms there than if they are removed. Now that is a difference that has always surfaced every time we've brought up a gun. There are some people who believe that everyone is safer if more people are armed in more places. That's not really what we're talking about today. We're talking about a sensitive place. And again, the Supreme Court has upheld this. The other thing I would add is that under the ruling decision, which if senators will remember is the decision that requires that there be a historical analog for a gun bill that we're proposing. The historic historical analog is clear here. Going back a 150, two hundred years, there were bars often in the West that prohibited openly, guns from being brought into the premises. And so the second circuit has recently upheld prohibition of guns in these sorts of places that serve alcohol. So I believe this is fully constitutional and necessary given, that this, for those of Burlington residents, this started for us a long time ago with a mass shooting, but it was reanimated in 2025 with a shooting outside of Red Square. And if you have walked by that spot, you have probably if if you live in Burlington, you have brought that to mind. So this is for the state, but I think the incident in Burlington was the immediate sparking activity. Thank you, mister president. Happy to answer questions.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary? Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex-Orleans)]: Thank you, mister president. Vermont doesn't have a gun problem. There's one area in Vermont that probably does have a gun problem, which we can recognize that. I think a lot of that could be taken care of if somebody in that area, specific area, want to prosecute those specific people who are causing the gun violence. Thank God the federal government has stepped in in those areas and done a lot of that work because that part of the area of the state doesn't seem to really wanna be serious about it. In the rural districts, 66% of Vermont's rural, we just don't have the types of problems that we're proposing to solve with this bill. This bill just isn't a simple little bill that is going to ban guns and bars. It's a very comprehensive gun banning bill that just really isn't needed in the state because Vermonters are responsible. They understand the gratitude, seriousness, the gravity of what it is to be a gun owner. And and and yeah I am one of the persons that believes that people who are responsibly trained and understand how to use a firearm and the times that they need to use a firearm. It isn't really just how you pull the trigger, it's how you manage your ownership of that firearm and at the times to where it should be deployed. Vermonters have a very good sense of that. I don't think it's gonna be very well received in 66% of Vermont. I think that this bill won't go very far. It might make it through a few different stages, but I do expect that it won't do very well. I don't even care for the, of the seventy two hour waiting period. I know that's meant to be a carve out to throw a carrot out there to get people maybe that might be on the fence to vote for this because really what it does is it takes away from the local fire firearm shops that are complying with all the state and federal laws that they do to sell firearms and people that order online, I don't begrudge them of that. But when it comes to that shop, the shop might get a small handling fee to do that firearm. I'd rather have people go to the shops and buy buy from their local firearm business who pays taxes in Vermont and all the license fees and all of that stuff. I don't think it'd be very hard to understand that I'm gonna be a no on this bill. And I do ask when it's taken as taken by role. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator Essex has requested that when the vote is taken, it is by role. Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: Mister president.

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Brief thank you, mister president. Brief recess, please.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We'll take a brief recess. Shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Windsor.

[Unidentified Senator (likely from Windsor; proponent on S.329)]: Thank you, mister president. Mister president, I I I find it interesting that the largest city in the state is, and forgive my use of words, targeted as having a gun problem. And I and I had to because I I can't use my phone on the senate floor. I had to go and check to see if that that was the case, and it is not. As a matter of fact, Burlington is one of the 10 safest cities in America. Let me say that again. Burlington is one of the 10 safest cities in America. So what is trying to be looked at is the old trope of a good guy with a gun beats a bad guy with a gun. Ladies ladies and gentlemen, this is not gun smoke. It's not a television show. The charter that we tried to get past last year with with very similar language looked at a slice of where guns would be a problem. You would not have someone go to a bar, have a couple of drinks, and then drive their car. But yet, you'd have them bring a gun and be okay with This is common sense. When people are impaired because of alcohol, they do things that they would normally not do when they're not impaired. Common sense. And I don't want this to be a rural versus urban argument. It is not. It is a common sense argument. Now, full disclosure, I am a proponent of the second amendment. I have a fire firearm. I was in the military. And because of that, I know the proper usage of firearms. I know what they were meant for. Many that voted against this say, we are for law enforcement. So when the chief of police of Burlington said, we want this to go past we said, oh, now we're not for law enforcement. You can't pick and choose. This is a very important bill for safety of people in our community, not 66%, 100%. So

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: when we take

[Unidentified Senator (likely from Windsor; proponent on S.329)]: this roll call vote, I want you to think about that. I want you to think about your 18 year old child. Excuse me. Your 21 year old child.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I forgot what the stance is.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor; Majority Leader)]: Okay. Right. I'm sorry. In

[Speaker 0]: a bar,

[Unidentified Senator (likely from Windsor; proponent on S.329)]: putting themselves in danger. Would you want that? I think not. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Lest this get cast as a Burlington versus the rest of us. Many years ago, the city of Montpelier had an ordinance banning a measure was concealed carry or guns in bars. And that stood until the state passed a law that said municipalities can't do that. The reason Montpelier had it is there was a certain watering hole located in the vicinity of City Hall that required that our police officers show up, sometimes more than once, usually on weekends, but sometimes during the week. And it was a danger for the police officers to go in there

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

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: there's turmoil and somebody pulled a gun. We didn't allow batons because they could lead to police brutality charges. So our police were pretty much wading into what could be a melee and this bill. And when the state passed the law, police chief said, please don't repeal it. I'd love to take this to court. I don't know if we never got charged, but we never repealed it during my time. And it is a protection for law enforcement. Every week, there is a pop up in the news somewhere of a mass shooting in bars, not just two people going at it, but four or five or six bystanders that get killed or wounded. It is not a safe place to have a firearm.

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

[Unidentified Senator (Addison District)]: Thank you, mister president. As a good senator from Major said, Burlington is 100 one of the safest cities in Vermont. I don't see why we need to make this rule that all of Vermont has to abide by a rule that one city would like to see. I'm pretty much in rural Vermont and during deer season and even during any time of hunting season you do have a lot of hunters that are carrying firearms in and out of a bar. I would say 99% of the time it's 100% safe with people carrying firearms. I'm sick of making laws that will affect that 99% because of a 1%. So I'm voting no on this bill. Thank you mister president.

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

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Mister president thank you. I having, been a legal advocate for victims of domestic violence, I do sometimes, like to point out and and celebrate when we are, doing more to enforce the laws around firearms that we have on the books, mister president. Whether or not it needs to be said, I also live in a safely secured, gun owning household, and I visited NRA headquarters once in Virginia and heard the tour guide say, we do not oppose enforcing the laws we have on the books to keep firearms out of the wrong hands, people who do not legally possess a firearm and should not because they may be a danger to themselves or others, Mr. President. And so when we, have bills that might have multiple pieces, I do just like to point out that if you look at section two on page twenty two seventy four or a number of the other sections, they are actually truly about preventing the kind of gun violence and gun fatalities that we do see most commonly in Vermont. And those are largely related to domestic violence or someone in a household, who is deemed to not be safe to possess a firearm. I actually, when we first took a look at our relinquishment laws in 2014 to create a safe storage policy where the courts could then say, not only can you not have possession of a firearm, but that, weapon should be safely stored somewhere that is out of your, reach. I worked with the local NRA chapter on that bill. It actually, really used to mean something in this building and beyond to say that responsible gun ownership means that we have a set of laws that regulate who has access to a firearm. So, Mr. President, as we take this vote, I also want people to remember, if they vote no, they are also voting against enforcing the laws we have on the books that actually do prevent a majority of the gun deaths, the ones that frankly aren't always reported or sensationalized because unfortunately they are more commonplace than other gun fatalities that somebody might die at the hand of a partner or get access to a firearm when they should not be making decisions about ending their life. So, mister president, I just wanna remind people that we look at firearm laws, constantly because it is, one of the most final, and irreversible item someone can possess. And I am proud to vote for this bill and I'm glad, that it's comprehensive in its look at what keeps Vermonters safe. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden District; President Pro Tempore; Chair, Judiciary)]: A quick clarifying question. The senator from Essex I believe had asked for roll call. Is the roll call on the amendment or on the final?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The roll call is currently on the amendment.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Is that what the senator from Essex would like?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex-Orleans)]: I'll call everything that we wanna talk about today on this bill.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: That is what the senator from Essex would like. Are you ready for the question? If so, the secretary shall call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Ruth? Yes. Senator Beck? No. Senator Benson? No. Senator Bongartz? Yes. Senator Brennan? No. Senator Brock? No. Senator Chittenden? Yes. Senator Ingle. No. Senator Long. Yes. Senator Major. Yes. Senator Mattos. No. Senator Morley. No. Senator Dorris. No. Senator Perslip. Yes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden District; President Pro Tempore; Chair, Judiciary)]: Those

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: voting yes, 17. Those voting no, 13. The ayes have it, and you have amended the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Roll call.

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

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Ruth? Yes. Senator Pat? No. Senator Bongartz? Yes. Senator Brandon? No.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Senator Hashim? Yes. Senator Heffernan?

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: No. Senator Ingalls? No. Senator Lyons?

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

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

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The ayes, 17. The nays, 13. The ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of s three twenty nine. We have on the calendar for action h nine twenty one, which was passed by the house on 03/24/2026. It 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 fifty four 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 reports that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as recommended by the Committee on Economic Development. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H nine twenty one, an act relating to alcoholic beverages.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Rutland District, Senator Weeks for the report of the committee on economic development.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: Thank you, Mr. President. Wow. The irony is not lost on me about positioning the miscellaneous alcohol bill behind s three twenty nine. So I thank the president, I thank the pro tem for such a tee up. So h nine twenty one miscellaneous alcohol bill is an economic development committee proposal of amendment. I have very strong affinity for the craft beverage industry based on spending four years living and working in Saudi Arabia. Saudi is a dry country. The importation, production, consumption of alcohol in any form is haram. Haram is Arabic for forbidden. But as expats in Saudi, we were divided into two categories. One, who were producers and the other, who were consumers. Of course, being a producer makes you much more likely to be invited to parties. It's my producer background that colors the reporting of H921. I fully respect the skill, the pride, and the passion of producing quality fermented beverages. So back to Vermont. H nine twenty one is an important economic development bill that supports Vermont's craft beverage industry, brewers, distillers, cider makers, and winemakers. The bill represents a years long deliberation between manufacturers, business owners, regulators, and legislators. As the regulator of the alcohol industry in Vermont, the Department of Liquor and Lottery has been supportive and collaborative in championing market access and economic development. This bill supports regulatory parity between beverage alcohol sectors. By sectors, mean spirits, wine, and beer, while also responding to market changes including significant consideration excuse me, significant consolidation in the distribution network and ensuring continued support of our state's robust tourism industry. The legislature has made a series of incremental changes to the alcohol regulatory structure that has always considered through a dual lens, the balance of public safety versus business growth. Fundamentally, if proposed changes support business growth without negatively affecting public safety. It is generally supported by the Department of Liquor and Lottery. None of these proposed changes raise public safety concerns. So a change of or excuse me, a summary of changes in this bill. One, the fourth class license expansion. A fourth class class liquor license is issued to manufacturers for purposes of distributing samples at certain fixed locations such as farmers markets and tasting rooms. H921 expands market access for Vermont brewers, winemakers, cider makers, and distillers by increasing the number of tasting rooms that can serve additional manufacturers products. The bill differentiates serving limits by location type, keeping sample sizes unchanged for farmers markets while establishing a more generous serving for tasting rooms. Second, the bill affects wine manufacturers' establishments. The bill supports parity between wine and beer manufacturers by extending two wine manufacturers permission to operate two license on-site establishments continuous to their manufacturing facility, meaning that you can have a tasting room, which is rather a small footprint, and you can have a event space. So two two two establishments contiguous to the manufacturing facility. Third, it allows direct distribution by beer manufacturers. H nine twenty one permits licensed beer manufacturers to distribute up to 3,000 barrels, which is equivalent to 93,000 gallons of their product annually to holders of a first or second class liquor license. There has been a significant consolidation in the distribution tier in recent years. Manufacturers are less attractive to distributors who favor national brands. So Title VII already allowed wine manufacturers to distribute up to 5,000 gallons per year. The effective date of this bill on passage is a repeal of the expansion of the special venue serving permit. All other sections become, take effect on 07/01/2026. The committee received testimony from the Department of Liquor and Lottery, the commissioner, and the director of communications. Also the Director of Financial Regulations, Commissioner of Insurance, the Vermont Chamber of Commerce President, the Alchemist owner, Lucy and Howell Brewing Company owner, several members of the Vermont Brewers Association, the Vermont Grape and Wine Council, Ferrell Distributing Director of Operations, UVM Health Network, Vermont Association of Justice, the House's Bill Sponsor, the Office of Legislative Counsel and JFO, and sadly, from that list, none of those folks providing testimony offered sample beverages. The vote of the Economic Development Committee is five zero zero. The committee welcomes the full chamber of support h nine twenty one. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden District; President Pro Tempore; Chair, Judiciary)]: Thank you, mister president.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: The committee on finance, reviewed

[Speaker 0]: the bill and took testimony from several of

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: the same individuals that representative of committee on economic development discussed. Committee recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence. The proposal amendment is recommended by the committee of economic development, housing, and general affairs affairs, and we find from finance perspective, there was minimal financial impact. The vote of the committee was seven zero zero The

[Lieutenant 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? 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? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. I hope this vote is as expedient as the last one. In the fourth instance of amendment that you have in your calendar, we expand opportunities for catering licenses to be used on the premises of establishments that have other licenses. These are essentially a wine bar that might have the ambiance that it could function as a wedding venue, etc. And when we put the language in what we failed to do is make it effective upon passage. I think it would be fair to say that we knew making this change would make a difference for establishments that often have outdoor seating or are getting ready for their busier season, their tourist season or their event season. And so I hope it is seen as a friendly amendment. We actually haven't discussed this in committee, but I will let, the chair decide if she sees this as a friendly amendment that this should take effect upon passage, instead of waiting for other effective dates. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor; Majority Leader)]: Thank you, Mr. President. Certainly this, would be a friendly amendment. We had discussed, the substance of it, just not the time the timing of it. So, I would thank the amendor, and I would thank the reporter. Excellent work on our committee's behalf. Thank you.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden District; President Pro Tempore; Chair, Judiciary)]: Just procedurally, mister president, I'm wondering if we if if we can treat that as a scrivener's error and do it without, seeing a written version of it.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: It's in

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: the calendar. Yeah. The written version is in the calendar.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden District; President Pro Tempore; Chair, Judiciary)]: Ah, okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Yeah. And it's too much for a scribner. So I would I would suggest anybody that wants to see it look at their calendar. Very good. On page twenty two eighty. And I will slow talk the vote so you can read quickly. Question is, shall the senate propose proposal of amendment be amended as offered by senator Ram Hinsdale? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You've amended the proposal of amendment. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of h nine twenty one. We have on the calendar for action h nine thirty, which was passed by the house on 03/25/2026. It was referred to the committee on education, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the senate proposed to the house that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page twenty one fifty six of today's calendar. And that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H nine thirty, an act relating to addressing and preventing chronic absenteeism.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Bennington District, senator Bongartz, for the report of the committee on education.

[Senator Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Mister president

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I'm sorry, senator from Chittenden Southeast. I totally missed you.

[Senator Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: It's okay. Just a short, comment on the pages that you are listing. They're coming from yesterday's calendar. Ah. So I'd so it may be confusing to some. That's all. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Thank you for pointing that out. I am reusing some of yesterday's script that we didn't get through. Senator from Bennington.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: Mister president, with regard to h

[Unidentified Senator (Addison District)]: nine thirty, I'm

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: gonna take the liberty of saying that this bill this is the second most important bill you'll see from the education committee this year. And, actually, I think it's a pretty close second to the big big bill that we'll be seeing soon. We hear Vermonters constantly asking us why we're spending so much money in our schools and perhaps not getting the results that people wished they were getting. There are, of course, always ways to improve schools, and we should always strive to do so. But we also need to remember that there are a lot of societal forces at work that can have an impact as big as the classroom from a con. Here's what I think you will find a strange statistic. We have in Vermont a twenty five percent chronic absenteeism rate, and that statistic runs through all grades, the younger grades as well as the older grades. And there is obviously a direct line, between declining test scores and chronic absenteeism. It's pretty hard to educate kids if they're not in school. There are all kinds of reasons for chronic absenteeism. Poverty, problems with transportation, valuing or not valuing education, bullying, harassment, you name it. But you can't educate kids if not in school. And in turn, those kids are sentenced to going through life without the reading, math, and critical thinking skills necessary to navigate the modern world. So this bill is about fixing this fundamental problem, mostly by clearing clarifying definitions and procedures to actually give them effect. And one thing I wanna make clear from the start is that although this bill potentially involves intervention by the state's attorney's offices, it is not punitive in intent or in fact. The sole goal throughout the system is to work with families and get kids to school. So section one is the finding section. I won't read those to you. Section two is the intent section prioritizing early identification of issues, supportive intervention, and meaningful family engagement in order to produce consistent school attendance and student success. Section three adds definitions to the chapter. I won't go through them all except to note a couple. Chronic absenteeism is defined. It means a student who is absent for any reason for 10% or more of the school year excused or not. This is not the same thing as truancy. We'll get the truancy in a minute. This is just chronic absenteeism and the reason for defining craps chronic absenteeism is in part to say internally within the school there's something going on here. This isn't great. We should begin a discussion. And there are other definitions. Then we get to truancy. Truancy is 20 or more unexcused absences within the same school year or within the last hundred and seventy five days. You can actually round out from the last school year into the next. And with that happens, 20 unexcused absences in that period, the message is this is bad. We need to intervene. We need to get serious. So section of this when I say section now, a higher number, I'm talking about the statutory section. Sub so section, eleven twenty one requires that the parent or guardians of students to, ages six to 16 to actually get them to school. Parents or guardians are responsible. By the way, used to say, person in control, They undefined now it's parent or guardian. Sub section eleven twenty two says that if you're under if the child is under six or over 16 but in school the same thing applies to them. They have to they can't be truance either. The parent has the responsibility to get them to school. Section eleven twenty three allows a superintendent and by the way always or designee so every time I say that I'm not gonna repeat designee or ahead of school or designee to excuse an absence according to the chronic absenteeism truancy policy that I'll discuss in a minute. So section eleven twenty four requires the AOE to develop a model policy on the prevention of chronic absenteeism and truancy in consultation with several stakeholders. The model policy that they're developed is required to include, at the minimum, guidance for principal or head of school to excuse an absence, guidance for when a superintendent or head of school may request justification for an absence, guidance for how to address the issue of absence with a student with a disability, to consider the impact of hazing harassment portfolio on attendance, and then AOE is also to develop a model model procedures to accompany the policy, including a template for documentation of actions taken according to the model policy. This is where we're beginning to get serious about absenteeism. And then it in turn requires school districts and independent schools to adopt the policy at least as stringent as the model policy. Section eleven twenty six requires principles to notify the superintendent when a student, between the ages of six and 16 or enrolled earlier or later has, accumulated 20 or more unexcused absences within the same school year or across those school years, like I said, with a one hundred and seventy five day window, the superintendent is then required to notify the truant officer. The truant officer is required to give written notice to the student's parent or guardian. And very often as we heard, this is this is like knocking on doors trying to find them, have a discussion. And if the student following that or if they can't get in touch with them, the student does not start attending school. A complaint can be filed or is to be filed with the state's attorney's office. The state's attorney's office can either prosecute or bring a Chittenden's action. But here's the thing, that doesn't happen. The prosecutor's no prosecution doesn't happen. That's never the intent. What really is happening with would you get to the point through an officer is notifying the state's attorney's offices. It means that everything else has failed and often that is simply about being able to get the parents attention. They won't respond to notices. They won't respond to phone calls, whatever and so sometimes you need a final. Hammer something to really say Okay this is serious you must talk to us and then as we had with a testimony incidentally from one of the state's attorneys deeply involved in this truancy effort with other state's attorneys, then even they're doing the same thing. They're meeting with the families. They're saying what's going on. How do we get how do we get this to work? How do we start getting this about the school? And often once you get the opportunity to have that discussion, you find out, you know, and actually one of the examples we got was that the parent lived theoretically within walking distance a mile or something with one young child but then two other little kids they had no car and she couldn't get them to there was no way to do it so they figured out the solution for that that's the kind of thing that's going on here. So section eleven twenty eight repeals the old Truant officer drives the kid to school language. And section four, now back to the bill sections, governs the suspension or expulsion of students. The only change here is to make clear that in the event of a suspension or expulsion, a public or independent school can provide access to alternative education such as tutoring, alternative materials, and other things just to keep the child engaged and actually getting educated even though they're, you know, have done something to require them to get expelled. Section five requires the AOE going back to the model policy to provide to the committees of jurisdiction and update on efforts to produce the model policy on or before March 15 year, so '27. And then the policy is to be published by 07/01/2027. We wanted to back in committee so that there could be a discussion in case it wasn't going well or what just discuss what's in it and make sure it's working, but it has to be in place by 07/01/2027. And it requires, that public and independent schools, to adopt the poll aim the model policy or something as stringent on or before 07/01/2028. Section six, and I almost put this in here for the humor, repeals the fines of a $100 on superintendents who failed to meet the duties of this chapter and the same for principals and teachers with their fines of 25 and $5 respectively. Probably should have gone to the appropriations committee for the impact on the state budget. That was a joke. And section seven requires the AOE to submit a written report to the House and Senate Education Committees with recommendations for updates to Vermont's homeschool program by 12/01/2026. The act takes effect on 07/01/2026. The committee vote was five zero one, and I won't go into the the entirety of the witness list, but I did mention, you know, the state's attorney, several people from the agency of education, juvenile justice director from the, Department of for Children and Families Services Division, School Boards Association, couple witnesses. Well, there's a restorative the Lamoille Restorative Justice Center, Orleans Southwest Supervisory Union, the Howard Center, and many Human Rights Commission, many others. So, mister president, we ask for the body support.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on education? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. I was on the education committee a few years back when we eased some of the oversight of our homeschooling, program. And, I was wondering if, with that in mind, if I might interrogate the presenter of the bill.

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

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Mister president, I'm wondering if there's I'm I'm happy to see that there's gonna be some reporting on homeschooling. I think that's great. My question is if there's anything in this particular bill that would ask schools and DCF, for example, as an example, if they know of any kind of neglect or abuse or issues with a family and a child if they are required to report to the AOE when a student transitions to homeschooling?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: So I'm not sure I actually understood the question because your last your last clause from the where I thought you were going.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Oh, okay. Let me try again. So, when there's a student who is going to homeschool, I'm wondering if the school that might have a relationship with that student currently and DCF's Department of Children and Families, if they know of some struggles with that student between the student and the family or the family and the student or the parents, whether it be neglect or abuse or a host of any other issues, if they are required to report to the AOE that they know of these issues before the student is allowed to be homeschooled?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: Mister President, that's that's a level of detail which we did not get involved. We we simply had the discussion with the AOE about the fact of the report, and left it at that. We got got the details about what it would be available and wrote some of that. So, no, the answer to question is no. We don't know that. You didn't ask that question.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. Appreciate it.

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. So let me begin by apologizing in a way. Normally, I rise to interrogate the reporter of a bill, I've already looked at the bill and sometimes you can get just as good an answer off the floor as on, but I would like to interrogate the reporter.

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: And the reason is that we've been so busy lately in the calendar. I just didn't get this deeply into where we were. So I'm sure that the reporter can answer. On page, twenty two eighty four, we referenced the truant officer, and I'm just wondering whether every school in Vermont has a truant officer and if that's legally required.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: It's the district, I believe. Okay. I'm I'm sorry. It's the district, mister president, I believe. And whether it is required, I we didn't go deeply into whether every district actually has one, but that that is the they are supposed to. And I think I think most actually do because this is a big enough issue that, and oftentimes, it's oh, I don't know if the the deal is. But, I believe most do, although we did not take specific testimony for that effect.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: And it is existing law, mister president. So in fact, it's been on the books, so to speak, for a bit, I would imagine. My other question is, on page twenty two eighty six in section four, we have under a new section eleven sixty two, a public school or an approved independent school may provide access to alternative education such as tutoring, instructional materials, and assignments, etcetera. Did the committee take any testimony whether that would incur any additional cost to the school to provide tutoring?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: Oh it's a May Mr. President it's a May for one thing and I think that most schools in a situation where a student has done something severe enough to get expelled, they still want to educate that student, and they still want to keep going with that student. And so I think most often, these days, it's either in school suspension or some level of continuing to work, with the student to keep their education moving forward, but it is a matter.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: I thank the reporter, and I'll be voting for the bill.

[Lieutenant 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 education? 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 education. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it. You've ordered third reading of h nine thirty. S one forty two was passed by the house with proposal of amendment. The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? Senator from Chittenden, Southeast.

[Senator Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. As you will recall, this bill is about licensure for to for internationally trained, physicians and medical graduates to allow for folks who have been trained outside of The United States to achieve the ability and licensure to practice medicine in the state of Vermont. The bill that passed the Senate had a process whereby we had asked we had put in place a process for licensure and then asked for report back from the Department of Health Board of Medical Practice. The the bill, as it came back from the house, was actually, a bit of an improvement on that, so we're getting the report and the rulemaking, in a better sequence. So the report first and then the sequence would be for rule making toward, provisional and then, permanent license for folks who are medically trained outside the country. And the Board of Medical Practice does have the authority now to establish, a process, and they have used a process to license folks who are trained, outside The US. So within the proposal that's come to us, there is no requirement for retaking a residency if someone's already, had a residency, and the then the pathway is in place for medical doctors trained outside of the country to, report on recency of practice, where they've practiced, how they've practiced, and other information necessary to provide for a provisional or more permanent license. There is also consulting with the groups that had worked so hard and bringing this bill to us from the Wyndham County area. And in the process of looking at the proposal amendment we understand that that group is very satisfied with the with the work that's come back to us from the House. There's also a provision in the bill that gives health care facilities an understanding of their role in, working with internationally trained physicians once they have a provisional or a permanent license. So we will get a report back from the Board of Medical Practice in January '27. Rule making will begin in July '27, and then the program will go into effect in July '28 once the rules are complete. Your Senate Health and Welfare Committee, reviewed this and straw poll fully support the proposal from the house and ask that the senate concur as well. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we have confirmed the house proposal of amendment on s one forty two. We will be going back to third reading so that we can finish those up, and h nine fifty two has been read a third time. Senator from Windham.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Thank you, mister president. Thank you to the body for your patience. So I have the information. There were good questions. Regarding the EV chargers, statutorily, the money for the EV chargers had to be reallocated and BGS testified to us that the $995,040 was in the governor's recommended capital bill for reversion because they don't believe they'd be spending it this next fiscal year because they don't have the locations. However, the energy office is completing a survey to better understand where and how many charging stations are needed throughout the state and again these chargers are chargers for at state sites for use by state employees and state vehicles only. Additionally act 185 of 2022 appropriated $10,000,000 to ACCD for various work to support installations of EV stations statewide. And of that amount, 500,000 was allocated to be just to support the installations available to the public at state facilities. So they still have that funding available and they believe that's sufficient for what they can achieve next year. Hopefully that answers the question that question. And the question about the Rutland Fairgrounds, we've been working for three or four years in the institutions committee to address the three acre rule at Fairgrounds because we we know that that's an issue. A few years ago $2,000,000 was allocated for three acre work to four fairs. So that's Rutland, Champlain Valley, Addison and Orleans. And so the current situation at those fairs is that CVE used $500,000 so that was one quarter of the funding and is building the project now. The estimated cost is going to be $549,000 Addison will likely be able to install their project $250,000 which is great because there'll be funding left over from that. Orleans has an engineering plan. They do have a new board, they're trying to they're working on finalizing. Rutland is the most complicated and challenging site with very minimal space. The original estimate was 2,100,000 with no obvious site for the infrastructure. So it's a funding problem and a physical problem. What they have been able to do, they have mapped utilities which took a lot of effort to get that and then DEC worked with them to map appropriate locations. They do have an engineer who's going to start June 2026. They have not yet received any of the funding. The funding is there. Won't be able to do everything likely but the funding is there. So that hopefully answers the questions.

[Lieutenant 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 we've passed in concurrence with the proposal of amendment eight nine fifty two. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden District; President Pro Tempore; Chair, Judiciary)]: Thank you, mister president. Having conferred with several of the chairs on the House proposal of amendment, it seems as though another day is necessary for most of those. So with that said, I would move that pending announcements, senate stand in adjournment until 11:30AM Friday 05/08/2026.

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

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington; Chair, Finance)]: Thank you Mr. President. Finance will meet at 01:30.

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

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. I had thought we might be covering the t bill today, but since we apparently are not, if you were thrilled to learn about the white book, which is not a prop, and you had questions about projects, it is available, and we're happy to talk to you as a committee prior to it being heard on the floor.

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

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate appropriations will meet at 01:00.

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

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

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

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: Mister president, the senate education will meet at 01:30.

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

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex-Orleans)]: Thank you, mister president. I was dismayed to read in a a a publication today about a manufacturer of, baby infant formula that was leaving the state, and it led me to believe that the way the article was written and it might have something to do with some of the legislation we're passing. I hope that isn't true. I hope that, that whatever we can do to talk with that company and keep them from moving to their other location could happen. And again, I'd hate to be the cause of a vote that I took that would cause a company to move out of state. And I'm hoping that everybody's on board with communicating with that company to see really why the reason is that they decided that they wanna leave the state and vacating. It was hard to tell from the article how many jobs, but it looked to be like 400 jobs, and that was, very sad to me. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. I'd like to reassure the folks that, my understanding is that this baby formula company has been considering, ending its existence for a bit of time and that the, person in charge of economic development in Franklin County is working with that organization and others to ensure some type of new industry going into that facility, but not understanding that the bill that we just passed has had the effect that that the senator has shared concerns about. I would also share those concerns were it, to be true. So thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central)]: I also just wanted to share that that particular company is on my list, and it actually create it crafts and creates some very safe and high quality formulas, so they would not have been affected by the legislation. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, the senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate stand in adjournment until 11:30AM, Friday, 05/08/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. We'll stand in adjournment until 11:30AM, Friday, 05/08/2026.