Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Please come to order. Sorry, Aaron. We will observe a moment of silence in lieu of a devotional. Thank you. Are there any announcements? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair, Senate Health and Welfare; Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. Assuring the president that I voted with a prevailing side, I move that the senate reconsider its vote on its adoption of the amendment offered by the senator from Addison, senator Heffernan, on h, 657.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The senator from Chittenden Southeast has moved that the senate reconsider its action on the amendment offered by the senator from Addison yesterday on H 657. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Mister president, I rise in support of the reconsideration of this vote. The reason I feel so strongly about that, and I appreciate the motion coming from the chair of health and welfare herself, is because I was concerned. I didn't have enough information at the time and while I did vote no, I am deeply grateful for the opportunity for us to reconsider it with new information. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is the senator from Chittenden Southeast has moved that the Senate reconsider its actions on the amendment offered by the senator from Addison yesterday on h June. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy; Washington)]: Nay. The

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you've agreed to reconsider the vote on the amendment offered by the senator from Addison yesterday on h six fifty seven. The pending question is, shall the senate proposal amendment be amended as offered by senator Heffernan? Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Excuse me. Point of order, sir. What was the question?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: What's your point of order? The question is the pending question is, shall the senate proposal of amendment be amended as offered by senator Heffernan? Senator from Rutland.

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

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We will take a brief recess. Will the senate please come to order? The pending question is, shall the senate proposal of amendment be amended as offered by senator Heffernan? Are you ready for the question? If senator from Franklin.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: Thank you, mister president. May I inquire of the chair of the health and welfare committee?

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

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: Thank you, mister president. I'm just curious on this motion to re in effect, recommit or to to redo the motion that we passed yesterday, and I'm wondering if the chair of health and welfare can can provide us with whether or there's any new information that we should consider, perhaps information that that motivated her to make her motion to begin with.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair, Senate Health and Welfare; Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. Yes. Actually, there is new information. You know, as the I was not the presenter of the bill. And so in back going back and reviewing the working group and looking at the bill in total and understanding the testimony both in the house and in the senate, it became very clear that the working group has quite a different perspective and goal from what was expressed on the floor yesterday when the, presenter defended the proposal, the amendment. So the working group is actually working with, women in their ninth month of pregnancy to determine their ability to, carry on parenting after the child is born. And DCF, through the Family Services Division and others, including Planned Parenthood, have been working with folks who are in Department of Corrections or in other ways in other ways have mental health or physical conditions that make it questionable about their ability to continue as parents going forward. This gets into significant legal and justice questions for both the Department of Children and Families and for others within various communities who are established, who are put on on the working group itself. Excuse me. So it does not make sense to have an organization that, has a different perspective. The the goal of this is to work with those women who are in their ninth month of pregnancy, who are within, oversight of Department of Children and Families, and where decisions can be made about their ability to continue with parenting once the child is born.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: Thank you, mister president. I had the impression that many representatives of the people who were or the group that was named to oversight role were people who had testified for the committee during the committee examination process of the underlying bill. Is that incorrect?

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair, Senate Health and Welfare; Chittenden)]: I'm not sure I understand the question, mister president.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: I'm I'm wondering, mister president, whether the committee heard from many of the people who might be represented on this review board or whatever it's called, had testified before the committee during its consideration

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair, Senate Health and Welfare; Chittenden)]: of the underlying bill. The testimony that we heard came from the Family Services Division of DCF and supported the working group as it came to us from the house. The house also had testimony from a number of folks.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Senator, mister president. Boy, this really smells of politics, mister president. Really, really does. The fact that you can't get a group of people in the whole room that have different sort of opinions and could just top things out like normal people. And, man, I'll tell you, this is just politics at its best, I guess, or at its worst. Vermont watches all this stuff. They understand what's going on. We can talk about how it isn't right to have people with different opinions try to work them out and all that stuff, but, this is kind of odd. It's something that passed, overwhelmingly yesterday and then cut back in here today. But, you know, that's what politics does. They write big checks to a lot of these folks in this room and then just building all of that stuff.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Point of order. I

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: believe that the senator is impugning. I believe he is breaking a rule with in our rules around the point of people taking money to make decisions that is impugning the reputation of members of this body who are voting differently than that senator. And I believe that is against our rules. And I can go to Mason's rules where no person may indulge in personalities impugn the motives of members is what I would describe as the and that's on page 95 secondtion 122 of Breaches of Order of the House.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator, I find your point of order not well taken in section one twenty one. Number two, no person may indulge in personalities, impugn motives of members, use incident or profane language, or participate in conduct that disrupts or disturbs the orderly proceedings of the body. That said, senator from Essex, I would also ask you to be more careful, with your words and not, get close to the limits.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: As I

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: was saying, I just think it's, just, in this world to where conversations matter and, people that have differences of opinions should be able to get in there and express those and talk and and to have it one way. And it seems to me like you're just guiding somebody into the way that you want them to be. And, you know, I I got on the politics in a innocent little way, but and it was this. I had a town that I was part of that always seemed to be fighting with each other, and there was a was a just a revolving door of one on a three member board, one board member and always resigning. And and I went to them and said, know, I'd be interested in running if you folks would be interested in in, you know, fairly pointing me to that position. And I said, but I have two conditions. I said, one is is that if we first don't listen to people, you know, that come in with their to what they ask of one another with automatically saying no without trying to say yes through conversations about what they're asking for, then I won't be very long on this board. And the other thing is is that if we just continually attack one another, I won't be on that board very well. So we were in a very conservative town and what we allowed by listening to folks as a very liberal contingency of people to come in with their ideas, difference of of ours and what a difference it made in our community. Long lasting, it was ten years ago and things are still really going very well, all because what we did. It's funny because it comes to me as something that is just natural to do, But I still get thanked for that to this day from every time I go through that town, which I'm not a member of. I'm not a resident of that town anymore. This is an idea of having differences of opinions on a board to help people make life changing decisions and, to limit it just to make sure that it just goes down this one narrow path, which is the opinions of too many people on a board without having to send an opinion. I think it's pretty terrible, mister president. And, again, Vermont watches this stuff. Thank you.

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Actually, I'll yield to the senator from Addison.

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

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: Thank you, mister Caledonia.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: I asked there's eight other groups that could be on this board. In the framing of the working group, it does not point out that it is in the ninth month. And as I've been learning only in my second year here is that we got to usually get pretty specific in our language of law if you wanted to have that one area. It said in the birth calendar I cannot remember the exact words in that phrase but it does not say just the ninth month of pregnancy. So I have to believe that it's from the time they know the individual is pregnant to the time they have birth and I think just like this room in here we have many difference of opinions we have many different thoughts.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: At the end of the

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: day we come together and work together. This working group will be the same way it will be different people with different objectives that come up with one great idea. I ask for everyone to continue to vote yes on this. I think it's a good thing for the group to have an alternative voice. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Regarding age six five seven, there seems to be some significant confusion on the balance of perspectives within the working group. So this I feel this requires a bit more reflection in the committee. So I move that we recommit H657 back to the Health and Welfare Committee for continued consideration.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore; Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. Ordinarily I would simply say, follow the wishes of the chair of the committee and that is so in this case I would hope that people would look to the chair of the committee but I would remind everybody additionally where we are in the calendar. Sending the bill back to committee is sending it to die, or or being careless of whether it dies. So this is an important bill. I believe we should take the vote on the amendment and then move forward with the bill. So I will be voting against recommitting. Thank you,

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? What's Point of order. Thank you. The question is, shall h six fifty seven be recommitted to health and welfare? Are you ready for the question?

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

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Roll call has been requested. When the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. The secretary shall call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Baruth. No. Senator Beck.

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Bongart? No. Senator Brennan? Yes. Senator Brock? Yes. Senator Chittenden? No. Senator Clarkson? No. Senator Caledonia? Yes. Senator Cummings?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Got it. Those voting yes, 13. Those voting no, 17. The amendment has failed. They're back to the question now is shall the senate proposal of amendment be amended as offered by senator Heffernan. Are you ready for the question? If senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: Mister president, may I interrogate the presenter of the amendment?

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

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: The amendment.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The amendment. I

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: think my colleague is so used to being interrogated with this in their exercise. Mister president, does the senator recall yesterday on the floor when I asked them if they felt comfortable with the language of the amendment having only talked to their one constituent about their service on this working group.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Mr. President, please repeat the question.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: Mr. President, does the Senator recall saying that he hoped the House would look further into this amendment because he had only had a chance to talk to one person and that was the individual named for the working group.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Mr. President, we actually had a chance to talk to two other groups that had to meet with their boards to There's many groups that want to be

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: part of this.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: As I said, there's a total of nine around the state. Was able to speak with two. One said definitely want to be a part to try to help guide a troubled pregnancy person in choices to make that are very hard and to guide them after having the child or after having an abortion to help with the traumatic experience that can come with that. Another group that wanted was with Aspire Now also wanted to but they have a board members that they want to actually ask and I believe that's probably what will happen with the other eight that want to do this as well. So this is at least getting, if you will, a foot in the door to have a balanced board to have many views on how to handle pregnancy.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: So Mr. President, do I understand from the Senator that we are now talking about the Women's Center as a statewide organization having a voice?

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: No Mr. President. The Women's Center is willing to go wherever they need to to help the individuals. As I gather right now this is just a board meeting and there will not actually be serving the individual that is pregnant. So I believe making it to the board will have no issue.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: Mr. President, are the nine organizations that the senator mentioned linked in some way?

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Mr. President, repeat the question again, please.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: Mr. President, I believe the senator expressed that nine organizations exist like this around the state, and I'm trying to understand if they are all called the Women's Center or if they share something in common that links them together.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: What links them together, Mr. President, is the caring about a pregnant individual and whether they decide to keep the child or abort the child and how that will stress the individual and be there for support no matter what decision they make.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: Mister President, do these do these nine organizations all, communicate with each other? Do they share, their their mission? Did they all appear in Vermont at the same time?

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Mister president, I cannot answer that question. So you're not willing answer to that question.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: Mister president, let's then focus on the women's center in Middlebury, which we all need to learn more about in order to consider this amendment friendly and in order to make an informed decision. How long has the Women's Center in Middlebury operated? President.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Mr. President, I believe over two decades I would have to find out the exact time but they've been in operation for many decades.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: And Mr. President where does the bulk of their funding come from?

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Bulk of their funding is all fundraising.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: Mr. President, is that from individual donors or particular national organizations?

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: No national organizations. It all is individual organizations donating to the Women's Center.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: So Mr. President, as I understand it, the senator is saying that it is all Vermont organizations or individuals funding the Women's Center in Middlebury.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Mr. President, I couldn't say for the 100% it's all Vermont, but I would I would I can find out that I believe it's almost 100% Vermont. They do reach into Ticonderoga, New York, so maybe some they're getting some funding from there as well.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: And Mr. President, what is the expertise of the specific individual named to be either placed on this working group or designate someone? What is their degree? What is their special area of focus that makes them a valuable addition to this group?

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Mr. President, I cannot answer that question. I know that they do have RNs and PAs that work to volunteer there to help. The director, I I cannot say I know she has a degree, but I do not know in what. But if we're asking those types of questions, Mr. President, I would have to ask the same of the other individuals on the board if we're we're gonna go down that road.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: Mr. President, we keep hearing about having a diverse set of opinions at the table. My understanding is we are trying to have a diverse array of expertise at the table, to help individuals make an extremely consequential decision in their lives. What opinion would the senator suggest is needed at the table from this particular individual or their designee.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Mr. President, what little I know of this group and have dealt with this group and seen how they have individuals from unexpected pregnancies to response to abortions and the after effects and the continuation of helping to make sure that the child gets good maternal guidance that just being in business or being around as long as they have should more than be a good resume.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: Mr. President, can the senator answer my question about the opinion that's missing from the table that's been referenced, multiple times that is needed at this table?

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: The from my opinion on that is the having personalized individual Vermonters because most of them will or if not all will be from Vermonter from Vermont speaking with again it's a working group so it's just having that second voice in there or that from I just don't believe Planned Parenthood is not a Vermont based company and they are here talking about having a company that does take money from outside areas. Planned Parenthood is huge one that does that but I don't want to get into this this is a discussion of having another view on a board of taking care of a woman that is in trouble pregnancy and having voice a reason and having these people on the board they deal daily with individuals that come in that are in a very hard place in life and they help guide them. So I believe having these people on the board would be an asset. It would not affect, it would not bring, I I just see it as an asset. That's why I recommended this amendment and I don't believe how they couldn't be but obviously members of this chamber feel differently. I still ask the chamber to vote yes on this amendment. Thank you Mr. President.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: Mr. President, I thank my colleague, and having, I I do thank my colleague, having, not answered my question about matters of opinion that need to be represented and having not directly answered my question about this individual's expertise that makes them a valuable member of a working group, a working group which we tend to financially support, to look to for guidance, for policy, and to, generally want to bring some expertise in healthcare and social and emotional well-being to the table. I have heard no reason, that this particular individual located in the Senator from Addison District should be added at the eleventh hour, to this working group. And so, I will be voting, no on this amendment, and I would ask that when the vote is taken, it be taken by roll.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator has requested that when the vote is taken, it be by role. Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Chair, Senate Finance; Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. I don't think any organization should use its position to unduly influence a woman on decisions, very important and personal decisions she's made. But I'm not sure that this board is doing, making those. So may I interrogate the chair of the health and welfare committee?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The chair is interrogated if she so desires.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Chair, Senate Finance; Washington)]: Mister president, wonder if the chair could explain what this board is charged with doing. And when we understand that, maybe it will be easier to understand who should or should not be on that board. Okay. Thank you,

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair, Senate Health and Welfare; Chittenden)]: mister president. First of all, it's a working group, not a board. It has will not have an extended lifetime. The bill has nothing to do with abortion or prenatal services provided. There's no need for a pregnancy resource center to be within the group. I will get to what it's doing in a minute. Thank you. And I will say that the reason that Planned Parenthood had been put on the working group is because of the work that they've done with advocacy for people who are pregnant. The goal of the working group is to understand what we know to be the Department of Children and Families pregnancy calendar, not prenatal services. The pregnancy calendar is something that DCF has used for years and has recently come to light, and it is the work that DCF does through the family service division and others with folks who are, I would say, disenfranchised, may have mental health issues or other issues with respect to carrying their, going to full term and having a child. And so it's about how that how DCF works with these folks, what's legal, what's ethical. And so the reproductive justice work and expertise that the folks on the working group will bring is critically important to establishing those guidelines and, criteria for DCF to do its work. There have been questions about its legality in the past and what what this working group will do, and it includes folks like the, advocate for, child, youth, and family, our our child, youth, and family advocate in the state, who work very closely with, new new parents and others. So that that's the work of the working group. They're looking at the framework for that pregnancy calendar, and the pregnancy calendar does go to those last thirty days, the ninth month, to understand and work with pregnant women and their capacity to continue on as parents. So it is extremely complicated and delicate. Can't say it any, more than that. It's not about opinion, not about abortion. It's not about what prenatal services are provided. It's about capacity for for the mother.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Chair, Senate Finance; Washington)]: Thank you. Mister President, as I'm remembering it, the pregnancy calendar was challenged a year or so ago, and it was a way that DCF kept track of women who were pregnant, who they did not I'm I'm looking for the chair to help.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: She's getting to a question,

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: senator, from Chittenden.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Chair, Senate Finance; Washington)]: That there was a child taken into DCF custody at birth. That's not I wouldn't say rare, but it does happen. And it came to light that DCF does have people that are known to them, that they work with, that they have real concerns that that person is not able to raise a child. It's not about abortion, but it is about what what happens to that child when it is born. Does it stay with the mother, poor parents, or does and what is you know, you you we've had children that have died in the custody of their parents, and it's trying to find that balance. And that's what this working group, I believe, is going to be working on, is how do you set up the protocols that will respect the right of the parent and the well-being of the child. Am I correct in that, mister president?

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair, Senate Health and Welfare; Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. Yes. You are correct. May I add a comment?

[Senator Ann Cummings (Chair, Senate Finance; Washington)]: I will sit down and cede the floor.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair, Senate Health and Welfare; Chittenden)]: Just a quick comment.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: From Chittenden. Go ahead.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair, Senate Health and Welfare; Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. In many ways, this working group is critical as the senator from Washington has indicated. There have been legal there is a legal challenge, or there was a legal challenge to DCM for decision making regarding parenting. And so in many ways, what this working group represents represents with folks with significant expertise in establishing the protocol, the guidelines, the criteria going forward for what DCF calls the pregnancy calendar, what this is is really critical oversight that we as a legislature bring to the work of the administration. So I sincerely hope that we will allow for the working group as in the underlying bill to continue and to vote this particular amendment then, not seeing the expertise needed, any further expertise needed in the group that is included in the bill. Thank you Mr. President.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you Mr. President. I, there's been a lot of discussion about the expertise of the organization that has been suggested, by my district mate to be included on this, working group and I just want to reiterate first of all the comments of the senior senator from Chittenden South and the chair of the Health and Welfare Committee about what this working group is for and what kinds of expertise are needed on this working group. It is, as the senator said, a working group about protocols and processes that are used by the Department for Children and Families related to pregnant women in the later stages of pregnancy. And these are pregnant women who may or may be involved with DCF in some way. The organization in question does not have expertise in this type of area related to protocols for Department of Children and Families. I have represented the Addison District for many years now, and I have visited all of the relevant health care organizations and worked with many health care providers in my district. I have visited the Women's Center and talked with them at length multiple times. Is not they are not a licensed health care provider organization. They do not provide licensed health care to women during pregnancy or during prenatal care or pre pregnancy or after pregnancy. They are not a health care provider. They may sound like a health care provider, but they are not health care providers. They are not a licensed organization with expertise in pregnancy care. And they are not an appropriate organization to be on a working group of this kind. Looking at the membership of the working group, the membership is extremely diverse. It represents a lot of different opinions. It represents different perspectives. And these are organizations that have a seat at the table because they have expertise or something to add to the conversation that is important to make sure that the protocols of the Department of Children and Families are appropriate and sufficient and legal. This organization does not have the expertise and is an inappropriate member to be at a task force of this kind. And I I encourage the body to vote no. This is a harmful amendment and an inappropriate amendment, and I encourage you to vote no. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: What does expertise mean? I was voted in as a senator. You know what I did? I'm excavator. Excavator and I'm a businessman. But yet I add something to this body. If you talk to some of my constituents that are running they would say he doesn't have a degree. Where's his where's his, what right does he have to

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: be here at this

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: table voting on laws? So when we ask a group that I put in to say this gives you another perspective, people that are in the trenches they might not have a degree, they might not have a like, but they can add something to a working group that maybe this others cannot and at least they're heard. That is what this is about. Just having voices, regular people's voices in a working group that can bring a different perspective just as I bring a different perspective to this body. So I'm asking again for a yes vote. For my amendment. Thank you, mister

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: president. The question is, shall the senate proposal of amendment be amended as offered by senator Heffernan? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. No. It has been rolled. I apologize. The secretary shall call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Mato? Yes. Senator Morley? Yes. Senator Norris? Yes. Senator Pershing? No. Senator Plunkett? No. Senator Ram Hinsdale? No. Senator Gulick? No. Senator Watson? No. Senator Weeks? Yes. Senator Westman? Yes. Senator White?

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair, Senate Health and Welfare; Chittenden)]: No. Senator Williams? Yay.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Yep. Those voting yes, 13. Those voting no, 17, and the amendment has failed. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Senate Reading Clerk (Name Not Specified)]: H six fifty seven, an act relating to various programming and requirements within the department for children and families.

[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. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and we've passed h six fifty seven.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair, Senate Health and Welfare; Chittenden)]: We

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: oh, announcements.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any announcements? Seeing none, we've received h nine fifty two back from the house. They have refused to concur in the senate proposal of amendment and have appointed a committee on conference. On behalf of the committee on conference, the following senator senators are appointed to the committee on conference on the part of the senate. Senator Harrison, senator Plunkett, senator Benson. We have h nine thirty five and h nine fifty five being on the calendar for notice and carrying an appropriation under rule 31, they are referred to the committee on appropriations. We have h nine fifty three pursuant to temporary rule 44 a. The following bill has failed to meet crossover and being released by the committee on rules are referred as follows. Bill number h nine fifty three to okay. To the committee on government operations. Orders of the day. We have h two ninety three for third reading. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Senate Reading Clerk (Name Not Specified)]: H two ninety three, an act relating to health equity data and rep data reporting and registry disclosure requirements.

[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 Orange.

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: Yes, mister president. I was asked a question yesterday that I said I would get back to the senator at third reading, And so I have been in contact with the Department of Health. And what they have informed me is in both instances, both in the

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore; Chittenden Central)]: death and

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: hospice and in the lead, screening. They will continue to collect the data just as they always have. The only difference is they will not issue a formal report, and that that information will be available on the Department of Health's website without having to go through any foyer request, so the public would have access to that information.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. We passed h two ninety three in concurrence with proposal of amendment. We now have h five eighty three for third reading. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair, Senate Health and Welfare; Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. You'll see in your calendar a very short, amendment on page twenty nine eighty seven. In going through the bill, reporting it, I noticed, a date glitch. So the data that's going into the Green Mountain Care Board will not come in until March. And then in the bill, it indicated that that information would be posted in February '27, but it's not collected till March 27. So what this does is it moves the date for reporting the information to July 2027. So it's really it's a very technical correction that's important to the bill. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate proposal of amendment be amended as offered by senator Lyons. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it. Motion carries. Are there any further amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Senate Reading Clerk (Name Not Specified)]: H five eighty three, an act relating to clinical decision making.

[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.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore; Chittenden Central)]: Aye. Nay.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and we have passed the bill in concurrence with proposal of amendment. We now have h six forty two for third reading. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Senate Reading Clerk (Name Not Specified)]: H six forty two, an act relating to youthful offender proceedings.

[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. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. We passed h six forty two. We now have h nine fifty six for third reading. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bell.

[Senate Reading Clerk (Name Not Specified)]: H nine fifty six, an act relating to approval of an amendment to the charter of the city of Burlington, Burlington relating to the office of racial equity inclusion and belonging.

[Lieutenant 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. The ayes have it. We passed h nine fifty six in concurrence. Yep. Got it. We will be passing over s two thirty and moving on to s two ninety eight. S two ninety eight was passed by the house with proposal of amendment. The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: Thank you, mister president. So s two ninety eight appeared for the first time back in January of this session. This body voted it out of the senate in March, and it has come back from the other body with six proposals of amendment. Senators can find those on page two nine five nine in today's calendar. The first one has to do with the changing of the name of the bill. House amendment wanted to change it from Vermont Roadie, Vermont Rights Act to Vermont Voter Protections Act of 2026. The second amendment would substitute a single election offense interference with by voters and election officials for the senate's four distinct offenses. Broadly speaking, mister president, the offenses will prohibit much of the same conduct regarding interfering with elections. It also amends title 17 section nineteen seventy two to remove language that will be made redundant by this new section. The third proposal of amendment from the other body would reorganize to the to be created statutory section regarding voter denial or dilution to rest within title 17 chapter 34. The effect of this is that the attorney general's office will have enforcement and investigation powers to enforce these new provisions. The fourth instance of amendment would amend law regarding voter checklists to require that any person wishing to obtain a copy of a municipality's portion of the statewide voter checklist or any other municipal voter checklist has to swear or affirm they will not use the information in a manner contrary to law. The existing law explicitly, requires this for copies of only the statewide voter checklist. This would include municipal voter checklist as well. The fifth instance of amendment, and I'll be offering an amendment on behalf of the committee in just a moment. The house amends laws concerning financial disclosures for candidates for state legislative and county office by explicitly requiring the state ethics commission to answer candidates questions and to provide informational resources to candidates, and importantly, would also suspend through 05/30/2027 any enforcement and penalties for any candidates who've delinquently filed this financial disclosure form. And finally, the house had amended the bill to a provision regarding safety protections for candidates. It would amend campaign finance law so that the definition of what constitutes an expenditure will now include any costs incurred for the provision of monitoring systems, protective detail, and cybersecurity related to a candidate's security. I'll just mention when this provision left this body, it did create a bit of a loophole, according to some, that you could literally spend campaign money to buy a firearm because you were in essence trying to protect yourself. So the house tightened that up quite a bit, and it seems to make more sense to the senate committee. So those are the six items of, amendment from the other body, and we concur, enthusiastically and support that. We also, mister president, if I can walk through a suggested amendment to send back to the house with a further proposal of amendment.

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

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: Thank you. So, first amendment or instance thereof by striking out section four in title 17 in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof a section that would read the senate ethics or the state ethics commission shall provide informational resources to candidates and answer candidates questions regarding the requirements of title 17, how to accurately complete and submit the candidate disclosure form, and the penalties for failing to properly disclose them. The commission shall make available on its web page the disclosure form for pre prepared responses to frequently asked questions and then any informational resources and materials that it deems necessary to adequately inform candidates of how to comply with the provisions of title 17. And then the, sub two is that the office of the secretary of state will provide hyperlinks from its webpage connecting the disclosure form from the ethics commission so that either way, people would have access to the form. I would mention that if you look on page twenty nine sixty three, this is in essence the the essence of the, amendment, and toward the end of the first paragraph on that page, it reads, upon contact by a candidate, the commission, meaning the ethics commission, shall provide answers to the candidate's questions by email or by phone, whichever the candidate may prefer. In an attempt to find compromise and to lessen the burden on the state ethics commission who are financially stressed at the moment, the committee chose to delete that one sentence from that so that it lessens their burden. And if they post the frequently asked questions on the web page, hopefully, that would suffice to answer many of the questions. The second instance of amendment, says on or before 01/30/2027, the state ethics commission and the secretary of state's office shall report to both the house committee on government operations and the senate committee on government operations their combined and shared recommendations on how to best manage candidate disclosure forms, which are required under title 17 section twenty four fourteen and twenty four fifty. Again, because of financial considerations, there has existed a bit of tension and in fact some disagreement between the secretary of state's office and the state ethics commission as to who should be required to, make up the disclosure form, the financial disclosure form, and then try to help candidates answer that. So this is hopefully an answer to that question so that by next year, when this body reconvenes, there will have been a meeting of the minds and perhaps a perfect solution one could hope, suggested. And then the final third instance of amendment on this is the, reverting to the definition of political committee or political action committee means any formal or informal committee of one or more individuals or corporation, labor organization, public interest group, or other entity not including a political party to spend and the way that the law and this was just done last year by the general assembly in 2025. So we have not had an election year yet in this, but the conjunction or was changed so that now it reads, if you raise money or expend money to influence an election, you must report as a pack. This would revert back to the language before it's not even been a year, was passed in June '25. It would revert back to and as the conjunction inserted between those two phrases. And, the issue there were there were some concerns raised that, this might capture some groups and organizations that, would otherwise not have to report, and so the senate felt strongly that we should at least take this for this particular election year, and we can look at it again next year. So by a straw poll, the committee offers the three instances of amendment and otherwise concurs with the house, but this is a further proposal of amendment, so we'll have to go back to the other body. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary; Windham)]: Thank you, mister president. Since we're talking about the house amendment, I believe this is the appropriate time to stand up. Senate judiciary, while we did not have this, committed to our committee, we did take a look at the offenses, the criminal offenses that were listed in the earlier versions and the version we have before us now. Essentially, several criminal offenses for intimidation, threatening, or coercion, initially they were in separate, separate statutes. The other body condensed them into, a single statute in 1975. There was also the false information regarding elections that was a separate offense. The House the other body removed that. My understanding is that there were concerns about a potential first amendment violations in that regard. By a straw poll, the senate judiciary committee is supportive of the changes from the other budget.

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: I inquire of the presenter of the

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: I just wanna make sure I'm clear on the obligations of candidates given section five of the house proposed amendments that the ethics commission shall not enforce any delinquent filers and that the Secretary of State should not give the ethics commission the names of people that are delinquent filers which I assume also means just did not file. So I guess the question if if a candidate doesn't file the form at all, would anybody know? Or it could this would the Secretary of State present that information in some other way or would like the or senator with the county clerk notify that that that wasn't filed or does this provision on page twenty nine sixty three basically make filling out the form voluntary?

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: Thank you, mister president, for the question. My understanding is when this it it turns up a senate district you file, you are required to have the consent form petitions filled out with a 100 registered voters in that district and the financial disclosure. So the county clerk in this case, as opposed to the other body who have a little smaller, district, would know, but you are correct that if you read the language strictly as it appears on 2963, it would just be for delinquently filing the disclosure. So I don't know the perfect answer to what is a a very good question, but, that's we didn't decide in the committee to change that at all.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Mister president, I guess my question is what is delinquent filing? Does that mean are you delinquent if you don't file it at all? Another

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: great question, senator, mister president rather. I I think the definition of delinquency is that it's late, but I don't know whether it would extend to not filing it at all. But again, the Senate Committee on Government Operations did not take any further testimony on that. We left that as it came across from the other body, and I guess it would be up to secretary of state or the state ethics commission to come up with a definition of what delinquent means.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Just to to be clear, so the the the county clerk might notice that it's not there. The county clerk would still accept the petitions and forward them onto the Secretary of State if the campaign campaign or the candidate financial form is not included within the Secretary of State. So is that is it what is it the understanding of the committee that if petitions are filed with the County Clerk and this form is not there that the clerk would still forward the petitions and the form to the Secretary of State?

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: Yes, Mr. President. That is correct.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: But then the Secretary of State might notice that it's not there, but since this is the Secretary of State shall not inform the Ethics Commission that it's not there. It would be up to the secretary of state to decide to inform anybody else like the public by listening saying, here are the people that did file.

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: Mister president, could I request a, brief recess to answer

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: I can see you.

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, president. I think the committee chair has

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: a sufficient answer. I'll let him eat here.

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

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: Thank you, mister president. So we have a couple of different issues perhaps here. One of them is when you file your paperwork for lack of a better inclusive noun, that does include your petitions with a 100 signatures of registered voters in your district, the consent form, and the financial disclosure. If you do not file all three at the same time when you go to your county clerk, you are considered immediately to be delinquent. So that's the first answer to the senator from Washington's question. That does not keep you off the ballot. Your name will still be on the ballot regardless of whether or not you filled out your disclosure form. It could become a campaign issue because those forms are available to the public. And so in my case, senator Caledonia filled out two of the three, but he never did his financial disclosure. His name will still be on the ballot, but my opponent could raise that as an issue. What are you afraid of? Why why didn't you put that financial disclosure? And it would become a camp a campaign issue in that sense. So I hope that satisfies most of the questions. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator Caledonia, that the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment with further 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 has concurred with the house proposal of amendment with a further proposal of amendment on s two ninety eight.

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: Melissa.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We will be passing over s two eighteen, h six zero six, s two zero two, h two ninety three h five eighty three six h oh, sorry. Third readings are done, which brings us to h nine zero seven.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Point of inquiry.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: What is your point of inquiry?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: I didn't quite hear what you said, so I just wanna understand.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We're on eight nine zero seven senator.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Do you mind if I just ask my question before you answer? So s two ninety eight, an act relating to the Vermont Voting Rights Act, we approved senator Caledonia's amendment, and we also approved to move forward with the house proposal of amendment to send back to them. Is that correct? Did we take that vote?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator, the it was it was one question, and we approved it, and we've moved off s two ninety eight.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: And could you please repeat the list of what you passed over? I

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: suppose, but it would be good if senators could keep up.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Your voice was mumbled in the microphone, so it

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: was very hard to hear.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The microphone does not amplify in this chamber, senator.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Could speak clearly.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We are passing over s two eighteen, h 606, s 202. It brings us to H907.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Thank you.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy; Washington)]: Mister Christopher? May

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: I ask

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

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: May I ask ask for a brief recess?

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

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair, Senate Health and Welfare; Chittenden)]: Your best. We

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: have on the calendar for action h nine zero seven, which was passed by the house on 05/07/2026, was referred to the committee on government operations, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the senate proposal to the house that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page twenty nine sixty eight

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: of today's

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: calendar and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass affecting 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 government operations. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Senate Reading Clerk (Name Not Specified)]: H nine zero seven, an act relating to legislative review of reporting requirements.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Chittenden, senator Vyhovsky, for the report of the committee on government operations.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. The committee chairs at the beginning of the session likely received a request from the government operations committee to look over the reports that your committees receive. And if you haven't, this will be your last opportunity to do so. What this bill does is it looks at the many reports that are up for review so we have reports are on a five year cycle of being evaluated as to whether or not we still need those reports, and there's a lot of reports, as you may well be aware. I am going to spare you going through section by section of this bill that looks at the reports we either did hear about or that we reviewed in the Government Operations Committee or reports that the House reviewed on their side. The bill does a few things. It repeals some reports. It repeals the report on the use of seasonal employees, the use of temporary employees by the Department of Corrections, and part of the reason it repeals other reports too, but it repeals those reports because that information is available on a website that we can look at in real time. We can know today how many temporary employees are being used today rather than looking at a report that is produced once a year. So we have more up to date, more accurate information on the DHR's dashboard, and so we felt that it was redundant to continue receiving that report. And so we went through and looked at many reports and looked at the ones that were either redundant or were no longer able to be done because we no longer do business that way, an instance that is like that is the performance accountability requirements and contracts and grants. That doesn't mean we're not going to hold our contracts and grants accountable, but the mechanisms by which we have historically done that are no longer how we do that, and so getting that report didn't seem well, it's not possible. And so we went through and looked at all of the reports to be repealed, and in the first sections of the bill, that is what you will see. And I would recommend, like I said, committee chairs, make sure that if there are reports they want repealed or reports they don't want repealed, they get that information to us and see if it is included in this bill. This bill also modifies some reports. So some of the reports that we modified are reports around various types of licenses issued to veterans, whether that be licenses from OPR or licenses from the Department of Health or licenses from the Department of Public Safety. Rather than continuing to receive those annually, we are going to now receive them biennially. So we will receive them once a biennium. And we moved those dates into the second year of the biennium because the first year of the biennium is report heavy. So this will decrease a report. We'll still get that information, but what we heard is that it would really be adequate to get it every other year rather than yearly. It also changes a couple of reports. There are a few other reports that we moved from being an annual report to a biannual report for the same reason. The other thing that this bill does is for some of our reports, actually determined that we're going to need those reports in perpetuity. And so we lifted the five cycle of them being reviewed. For example, the annual report on information technology and cyber security, in speaking to the director of the agency, the secretary of the agency of digital services, we all were on the same page that there's not going to be a day in the future when we are not interested in knowing what's happening in the cyber security world. Another report that we made permanent was the report from the ethics commission that comes in. And so those are sort of the three major things the bill does for various different reports. The one interesting thing that it does is we actually scooped in a report that was not up for review, and that is because there was some confusion about the annual report on IT and cybersecurity, and the committee accidentally brought in the chair of the head of the cybersecurity advisory council to talk about their report, which is not one of the reports we were reviewing and what we discovered in that conversation was that they needed some changes to their report. They needed the date of its due date pushed out. It was due on January 15. And what we heard was that that made it very difficult because of the sort of start of the session for them to get into committees and give that report. We also heard from them that that report is better as an oral conversation, but the report language specified that it must be a written report. And so we struck written. They do still have to provide a report, but now they're able to come in and just have a conversation with committees, and that will constitute that report. And so when we discovered a problem with a report that wasn't up for review, we included those changes in the bill because we had the bill available to us. Again, there are 22 secondtions of this bill, many of them dealing with multiple reports. I'm going to spare you going through line by line. If there are, like I said, reports that are of particular importance to your committee, I would encourage you to glance through and see if we might have repealed it. And I do actually want to thank the Health and Welfare Committee. Your bill yesterday repealed a couple of your erroneous reports, so you saved us from having to do it. So with that said, we heard from the Department of Public Safety, the Office of Legislative Council, the Vermont Judiciary, the Vermont State Ethics Commission, the Department of Human Resources, the Agency of the Administration, the Agency of Digital Services, the Vermont Criminal Justice Council. We heard from a resident of Montpelier who thought that who very thoughtfully brought us some changes to a natural resources report to make sure that we're adequately using and reporting on vermiculite remediation. So that was a very helpful aspect. We also heard from, as I said, the Cybersecurity Advisory Council. We were I didn't know there were multiple cybersecurity reports, but I think we are in good position. Again, reports where that information is available elsewhere or we no longer need the report, altering reports that we can get the information less frequently, and then putting in place in perpetuity reports that we're just always going to need. So that is what this bill does. If you would like reports added to it, let us know before third reading, and I the vote in committee was five zero zero, and I ask for the senate support.

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Senator appropriations looked at this bill, and we ask a question that we often ask is what triggered this bill to come to appropriations. So we appreciate the diligence of the secretary's office to find these small pieces in the Senate by rule to our committee. We think it was because there was some effective per diems on some of the committees that had to meet to issue these reports, but there are no appropriations or impacts of appropriations in the bill. So the committee voted seven zero zero to recommend that the bill have passed the concurrence of the amendment from the government operations.

[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 government operations? Are you ready for the question? Senator From Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you, mister president. I thought that the chair of appropriations was gonna applaud the senate government operations for saving the state all of that de minimis money. I didn't hear that. But I would like to say, I'm very grateful to the senator from Chittenden Central for digging into this very dry section of of a piece of work that we had to do, and she took it on enthusiastically and brought color to it. And for that, the whole committee is grateful.

[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 offered by the committee on government operations? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it. You proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on government operations. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Ayes have it. And you've ordered third reading of h nine zero seven. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore; Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. I believe we're ready to do h nine thirty seven, and then we have heard back from the other body on s two zero two. So if we could move to h nine thirty seven, then to s two zero two, that would complete our work for the month.

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

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair, Senate Judiciary; Windham)]: Mister president, this is actually one of the bills that we are, passing over. Just to add, not because we are not prepared, but rather there some logistical issues with

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: the other body at the moment.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Then we can move straight down to s two zero two. S two zero 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 Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy; Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. So senate natural resources energy did look at the changes that came over from the house. And again just to start with the end. I want to review changes that they made and then we do as being offered by all of the members of the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, we have a further proposal of amendment that I think is being passed out now. But before we before I get into that, I'm going tell you about what they suggested. So they are changing. I have been referring to this as the portable solar bill. They have changed it to the more technically correct version of the plug in photovoltaic device. We had some emphasis on that these could be movable, which is implied by the word portable and there was quite a bit of discussion that they had around the the safety of these devices and and wanting to ensure that that they were temporarily fixed to the either the ground or to a structure to ensure that they weren't going to fall somewhere, so appreciate that change. But so they removed the word movable, also from the definition. They also included a, a reference, as to what they must be complying with. They included there's a reference to the IEEE fifteen forty seven twenty eighteen, which is a code for that they must be complying with National Electric Code standards, and that is a welcome change as well. They, I mentioned the, the temporarily but securely attached to the ground or a structure, again, concerned about safety there, perfectly reasonable. And they also clarified our change. We had included a phrase that said that or I I guess you'd say a provision that prohibited the distribution companies from or I should say that they did not need to pay any fee or that they couldn't charge a customer for these devices and they clarified that to be that they couldn't charge for the installation of a device, but they added a provision that they could potentially charge if the grid was to be overloaded, which seems very unlikely, but is technically possible. And they also added a provision around clarifying the relationship or how this works in the relationship between tenants and landlords. There was a question about this, when I presented it, on the floor originally, and it was, more or less just silent on the landlord tenant, situation. But they, included some language, that that had that the the tenant, shall install a plug in device, or I should say, they cannot, install one of these devices without the landlord's permission and that they had the the tenant had to provide at least ten days notice to the landlord. And then the remainder of the language there that they have, we have some suggestions around because the the the remainder of the language seemed to us not terribly specific. So the it also had that the lander had ten days to respond. So more to come on that and one other thing that is worth noting is that the other body had a added a provision around applying efficiency standards. This was just a moving vehicle for them and that's fine. This language was about appliance efficiency standards. The national standards may be changing, wanted to peg the standards to twenty twenty five so this is keeping the status quo of the appliance efficiency standards that producers have to meet and we have further language to suggest around that as well, but as we understand it was not controversial because it's keeping the status quo. So that is the language that as it came over from the other body, I'm so gonna move now to the further proposal of amendment that is coming from the Senate Natural Resources and Energy. And so taking it in in two parts here, one is about this language regarding, the landlord tenant, relationship as it applies to, plug in photovoltaic devices. So we are keeping the, ten days notice that they're required to provide to the landlord, and then the landlord has to respond, within ten days. So clarifying that, if they don't get back to them that the work can proceed. But, having said that, the landlord does not need to be they're not compelled to do this work if it requires electrical work on their house. If any electrical work is needed to be done, that that is the domain and the jurisdiction of the landlord and, the tenant cannot perform the work. They can't hire someone to perform electrical work, without permission and the landlord can't be compelled to pay for the work or pay for somebody else to perform the work, on the premise, for the installation of one of these devices. Again being specific about that this is the landlord's, right to, to control the electrical system in their own property. So that's our language there. I think that's just a little bit more specific. And then we did also include along with the appliance efficiency standard, There was the the language should not include a provision that would cover electric motors. This is these are national rules that were that started under the Biden administration and would have gone into effect under the Trump administration, but they were never published and so this just codifies it into state law and we did get a letter from ABB which is a manufacturer of electric motors that they were in support of this in this language and happy to take questions on this at this point but we also did hear we took some written testimony on on this where there was written testimony on it and that also included, Bright Saver, BPERG and Vermont Electric Co op. Thank you. Oh, and we ask for the senate support.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator Watson has moved that senate concur in the house proposal of amendment with further proposal of amendment. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Franklin.

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

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: Just I don't oppose this. I just have a quick question. It may come as a surprise to the to the chamber that I'm not an electrician.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: I'm not a solar fan.

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: But as long as we're talking about protection for the landlord may inquire of the

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: the presenters interrogate had

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: a new boss. That's fine. Thank you, senator. As long as we're talking about the the landlords and protection whatever else, I'm not sure, but I've heard some discussion about these being installed improperly or whatever else. It's a back current, whatever. You take any testimony from any insurance companies as far as whether they would cover this, they wouldn't cover this just in lieu of the landlords protection?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy; Washington)]: Thank you for that question Mr. President. So we did take some, we did hear from insurance companies originally when we took testimony on this bill and the answer regarding at the time was that this is new technology and that there have not been any problems yet, but should there be any problems they would take that into account into any further policies that they have. But regarding is to as your question is specific to landlords' intents, do not hear from them on that.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: I thank you, senator.

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: Thank you, sir. Representative.

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

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Since my inquired reporter

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

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: On page twenty nine eighty five, calendar, it's February c three.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair, Senate Health and Welfare; Chittenden)]: So

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: under c three, an electric distribution company shall not require a customer using a plug in photovoltaic device that complies with section a of the section two, install any additional controls or equipment beyond what is integrated into the device. So typically, when there's a generator, there is a form of disconnection so and it's usually visual so you can actually visually see that there can be no current or voltage going back on to the electric system, the distribution and utility. So I I asked the presenter of the bill when it first passed here, and then I I reached out to the house chair of the committee. And I'm just curious whether or not there was any testimony concerning people that could actually be her maimed or killed by generation going back onto the distribution grid.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy; Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. That is a a good question, and that is exactly why, we needed to include, for example, in nine C that it complies with UL 3,700 because that those those concerns are real and so they need they need to be we have to ensure the safety of the grid and the people who are working on the grid and that is what that is intended to do.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Okay. So was there any testimony taken on behalf of people that work on these types of facilities such as Windham or anyone like that that is trying to protect?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy; Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. So while while, the Senate did not take testimony on that, because I heard that question, originally when we were looking at this bill, I did pass along, that concern, and I am forgetting the acronym of the name of the organization of the well, it's like the Brotherhood of Lyons.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: I see EW, which is International Brotherhood of Electrical Works.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy; Washington)]: So my understanding is that the other body did hear from from that organization.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Thank you very much Mr. President.

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

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: Mr. President, may I ask to interrogate the presenter of the amendment in the friendliest way possible?

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

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: Mister president, because I often live in the world of landlord tenant law in our committee of jurisdiction, Again, I want to ask some very friendly questions to make sure I understand this. And my final preamble, I think it's generally preferable that there is notice provided than that there is not. So, you know, I think this is a friendly and helpful amendment. Mr. President, would it be fair to say that the electrical load or energy draw, I don't have the technical expertise, would be similar to that of a window unit air conditioner?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy; Washington)]: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't have that off of the top of my head at this moment, though I think we could say that they might generate these devices may generate anywhere from just below 400 watts to 1,200 watts depending on the inverter for them. My question that I'm considering right now is that I'm unsure of the wattage of an air conditioning unit, though I think if I am I hesitate to speculate on that since these are known answerable things. But if I were to speculate, I would speculate that it would be comparable.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: Thank you, Mr. President for that speculation because that's also my speculation. And I am trying to then think about this as an appliance that is plugged in all the time that draws enough load, Mr. President, that it may prohibit other devices from being used at the same time and, while only requiring, to be plugged in near an outlet that hopefully is GFCI and meets other standards for an outlet that it would then potentially require electrical work if it could not meet the load, that it was trying to bear along with other devices. And the question here, Mr. President, is if this was found to be a challenge to install this device for electrical code reasons, would the tenant then have the ability to call the Department of Fire Safety if they're not in a municipality with code enforcement and discuss the potential for an electrical code upgrade?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy; Washington)]: Thank you, Mr. President. I I think it is entirely possible that anyone could call the Department of Fire Safety and and have the the the conversation that the senator is suggesting. I guess I would also point out that part of the requirements in UL 3,700 do include that you need to have a dedicated plug to avoid that as that is one of the safety concerns that is intended to be addressed here. So, I'm I'm not sure if I've answered the senator's question, but

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: That that's that's actually a very helpful clarification, mister president, and does satisfy that concern. My final question is, does this communication go both ways in the sense that the landlord may be highly enthusiastic about these devices or like with an air conditioning, they may feel it's better for the health of their building. Should this be installed or not installed? And can they essentially have that conversation with a existing or new tenant, about the installation or de installation of one of these devices, without running afoul of this law?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy; Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Yeah. That possibility is not contemplated in this, proposal of amendment, though, because it is their own property, presumably they would be able they would have the right to do it since since they own it. Though I could picture a future in which they they ought to provide some notice to their tenants. But as I mentioned, is that's not contemplated in this particular amendment.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: I thank the member. That satisfies my questions. They were more of a curiosity. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: I can't stress enough, president, that this is a generator, not an appliance. Right. And so it's not a washing machine. It's not an air conditioner. It's a generator. And so it's not using load. What it's doing is it's forcing voltage and amperage out across the system to reduce load in other areas of the household. So the wiring needs to be okay to order to move the voltage and the amperage from the outlet throughout the rest of the house. So but don't please don't think of it as an appliance or something like that. It's far from that. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Yep. Sorry to ask another question, but my choir is the presenter.

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: So I really appreciate of sections three and four, which kinda deal with condos, for lack of a better word, on homeowners associations. But in section two, it always references customer as the getting these rights. I wondered if the committee talked about the definition of a customer for somebody that might be in a building where they do not pay an electric bill that where their electricity is paid, for example, as part of their condo dues. Would they still be avail availed to these rights to install system even though they themselves do not have a electric bill?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy; Washington)]: Thank you for that question, mister president. When the committee looked at this bill originally, we did have conversation about what was the appropriate word to use in that situation that wasn't a topic of discussion, I'm trying to recall what the original word was because I think we went back and forth about that. At one point we were talking about consumers which would have which not it would have included the folks that he that the senator is referring to that maybe they don't have a bill, but we ended up landing on customer mainly because there it it had a more direct link to the the owner or somebody who has a financial incentive to, install one of these devices.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Okay. Thank you. I thank the senator and I think I'll trust put my trust in the lunch council that they advised on customer preference. Thank you, mister Chris.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, senator Watson has moved that the senate concur in the house proposal amendment with further 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 senate has concurred in the house proposal amendment with further proposal of amendment. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore; Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. I believe that completes our work for the morning. So I would move that pending announcements, senate stand in adjournment until 10AM, Friday, 05/15/2026.

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

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chair, Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs; Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. Prior to today, the secretary and I had been discussing a voluntary rules and decorum session at 9AM next Wednesday. So I thought it was a good time to announce this rules and decorum session. It's voluntary, but if folks want to put it on their calendar, I imagine most morning committees will be closed, and we will have largely a Q and A with the secretary on rules and decorum as we get into the busiest and most charged part of our legislative biennium. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you. For those of us whose morning committees are still sadly having to work because the house still hasn't sent us everything they need to do, and we still have one or two things left. This is a bit of a challenge given we only have an hour and a half each day to do our work from 08:30 to ten. And might we consider a different time for this discussion of decorum? Is what I oh. I would request that of the pro tem. Thank you.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore; Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. And, I sympathize with the chair of economic development. What I would say is that morning committees are effectively shut down, and so they are no longer prioritized over other activities. So I believe this voluntary session can go forward. I understand that morning committees have work they need to be doing but the idea is when we shut down morning committees we're trying to ease the possibility of multiple things being scheduled against not only the money committees in the afternoon but other things we need to do to finish the session. So with apologies to the Senator I would just say that if you're a morning committee still working on bills

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: that need to

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore; Chittenden Central)]: be sent over to the other bodies still, I think those bills should be put aside, and you would only deal with, responses from the other side from the body. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Senator appropriations will meet at 01:15.

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

[Senator Ann Cummings (Chair, Senate Finance; Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate finance will meet at 01:00.

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

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: Thank you, mister president. Government operations will also meet at 01:15.

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

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy; Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate institutions will meet at two.

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

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: The climate solutions caucus is meeting in five minutes, and there is free pizza available. It's our last of the year. Everyone is invited.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden)]: 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 10AM Friday, 05/15/2026. Are you ready for the question? Oh, okay. If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we'll stand in adjournment until 10AM, Friday, 05/15/2026.