Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden District)]: Should make a call. What?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Bennington District)]: Oh, yes.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Will senate please come to order? We will observe a moment of silence in lieu of a devotional this morning. Thank you. Please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Are there any announcements? I see we have received h six sixty back from the house. They have refused to concur in a senate proposal of amendment and have appointed a committee of conference. On behalf of the committee on committees, I would love to know who the participants are in that committee of conference. We'll take a brief recess. We will delay the conference committees for now. We have a rule 31 referral, h five forty two being on the calendar for notice and carrying an appropriation under rule 31 is referred to the committee on appropriations. We now have j r s 54 joint resolution relating to weekend adjournment offered by senator Baruth of Chittenden Central. Listen to the reading of the resolution.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Resolved by the senate and house of representatives that when the two houses adjourn on Friday, 05/22/2026 or Saturday, 05/23/2026, it'd to meet again no later than Tuesday, 05/26/2026.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the reading of the resolution. The question is, shall the senate adopt the resolution on its part? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and we've adopted the resolution. Orders of the day. We have on the calendar for action h six zero six, which passed the house on 05/08/2026. It was referred to the committee on judiciary, 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 thirty three seventy two 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 six zero six, an act relating to firearm procedures.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I recognize the senator from Windham District, senator Hashim, the report of the committee on judiciary.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Windham District)]: Thank you, mister president. It's starting off Tuesday, talking about firearms. It's all gonna be okay. H six zero six is a bill related to, firearm relinquishment procedures and I know there are a lot of other policies associated with this bill number. All of those policies that senator may have heard about have been removed from this bill and added to s three twenty nine, the bill that I also refer to as the senator Baruth special, and that bill is currently in the house. H six zero six is a bill related to firearm is related to a procedure known as firearm relinquishment. It's a procedure that's existed for quite some time and is used in narrow and limited circumstances in which it is lawful and constitutional for an individual to relinquish their firearms. This is primarily related to relief from abuse orders and extreme risk protection orders. This bill does not in any way change the circumstances or qualifications in which it is permissible for someone's firearms to be delinquent, nor does it create any new restrictions on possession or ownership of firearms. This bill addresses what happens after someone has been ordered to relinquish their firearms. So in some ways the current process placed the cart in front of the horse because years ago when we created a firearm relinquishment process, we didn't provide enough policy guidance for law enforcement, FFL, third parties on what happens after this. This bill addresses issues such as notice, storage, liability, and other administrative aspects of storing firearms. The impetus for this bill comes from act 64 of 2025, which this chamber passed with a unanimous voice vote. Part of that bill established the Firearms Surrender Order Compliance Working Group to develop a uniform process to ensure compliance with court orders. Their recommendations are incorporated into The language from Act 64 stated that the goals of the working group were to create a workable statewide compliance model that is adaptable to both the family and criminal divisions of the Superior Courts and that ensures accountability of respondents and defendants while addressing safety needs of the plaintiffs and victims, and proper storage and return of firearms surrendered pursuant to court orders, and recommendations for any legislative changes necessary to support the model. The membership of the group included the Chief Superior Judge, members of law enforcement, the Vermont Network, the Center for Crime Victim Services, Victims Advocates, and an FFL. All of the recommendations made to the legislature were by consensus. This bill creates a clear and fair path for FFLs to provide storage of non evidentiary firearms and clarifies the process for enabling a third party to hold firearms if approved by the court. It also increases legal protections for FFLs when they provide storage of non evidentiary firearms and when they remain in possession of the firearms after the expiration of any court order. So now for the section by section. The section one consolidates firearms relinquishment procedures by moving the current ERPO relinquishment authority. Also ERPO stands for emergency relinquishment and the sorry about that. One moment. Alright. So section one, I'm just gonna start over here with section one, consolidates the firearm relinquishment procedures by moving the current IRCO relinquishment authority from its current location in title 13 to the existing RFA relinquishment statute in title 20. This relocation was recommended because DPS is charged with establishing and implementing guidelines and standards for the for the relinquishment process. When a court orders relinquishment, current law permits the firearms to be stored with a law enforcement agency, an FFL, or a third party designated by the owner. Age six zero six preserves these three alternatives, and in subdivisions b one and two, the bill adds a requirement that relinquishment to a third party is only permitted if the court first holds a hearing and finds that the third party relinquishment adequately protects the safety of the parties. The hearing requirements are described in subdivision c one, romanettes one through three. These subdivisions provide that the hearing may not be continued solely for the purpose of approving a third party. However, the defendant may request storage for the third party at a later date. Third parties have to go through a background check and must sign an affidavit acknowledging receipt of the firearms and assuming responsibility for it. Subsection d adds an acknowledgement form that a defendant must sign acknowledging that relinquishment of firearms has occurred and documenting who will be storing. The form must be filed with the court or law enforcement or both as directed by the court order. Subsection e permits, law enforcement and FFL to charge fees for storing firearms, and h six zero six makes no substantive changes to this provision. The bill also repeals subsection f because it concerns the return of relinquished firearms, a process that is covered elsewhere in the bill. Subsection g details the procedures for law enforcement storage, with firearms use. Law enforcement agencies that do not have the capacity to store firearms or do not elect to store firearms themselves may store them with an FFL provided that the agency provides timely notice of the transcript of the person surrendering the firearms. The notice may also be provided directly by the NFL must include the dealers contact information costs notice that the firearms may be forfeited if the defendant does not treat them with the ninety days after their release and information about how the defendant will request storage by a third party. Under subdivision g three, a law enforcement agency that stores firearms with an ffl must provide the dealer with contact information for the owner and docket information about the court order requiring delinquent. Subdivision g four prohibits storing firearms with an FFL pursuant to a temporary, RFA or IRPO unless the defendant consents and agrees to pay the storage fees. Subsection H requires law enforcement agencies to make a reasonable effort to notify victims before relinquished firearms are released unless the plaintiff is present when the court issues the order and is orally informed on the record about the release. Subsection I describes the procedures for the release and sale of relinquished firearms. Release generally requires a court order after which the law enforcement agency or FFL, must make them available to the owner within seventy two hours after completion of the background check that is required by federal law. If the owner fails to retrieve the firearm within ninety days, the police or FFL may sell the firearms, but only after attempting to serve the owner with notice of the serve. If the owner cannot be personally served, notice must be provided by sending a certified letter to the owner's last known address. If the owner does not respond, the firearms may be sold, and the police or the FFL may retain the proceeds from sale. Subsection j concerns the immunity from civil and criminal liability that current law provides to law enforcement agencies for any damage to firearms stored pursuant to the statute. This bill extends the immunity to FFL's so that participating FFL's cannot be subject to civil or criminal liability for storing the firearms. H six zero six also provides immunity from the sale of firearms so long as the required notice is provided. Subsection k describes the Department of Public Safety's role in establishing and implementing guidelines and standards for the relinquishment process. It also adds a requirement that DPS adopt a policy that encourages FFLs to participate in providing storage. Section two of the bill requires the Department of Public Safety to direct the law enforcement advisory board to adopt a statewide model law enforcement policy addressing firearms access by persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms pursuant to relief from abuse orders, extreme risk protection orders, or other, legal prohibitions. State and local law enforcement agencies that do not adopt their own policies by 06/30/2027 are deemed to have adopted the LEAD model policy. Section three of the bill repeals the existing firearm storage process for ERPOs because as noted earlier the bill relocates these provisions to the RFA statute to keep things a bit more organized. Section four of the bill provides that it takes effect on 07/01/2026. Lastly, upon passage the bill would be renamed an act relating to firearms relinquishment and storages. We heard from legislative council, the Vermont Network, the Vermont Federation of Sportsman's Clubs, the attorney general's office, Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, and the vote in committee was four one zero, and asked for the Senate's vote.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate oppose to the house will amend the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Are you

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: ready for questions? Senator Caledonia.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a quick motion to suspend the rules. We have a colleague who has medical reason why he would like to take his jacket off. So for that reason, will ask for rules suspension to allow senator Weeks to remove his jacket in the chamber. It it has to do with poison ivy.

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland District)]: Poison ivy. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to allow the senator with poison ivy to take his jacket off. Our senator from Chittenden.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden District)]: Mister president, I I wondered if this conversation would come up, and I don't rise to debate the spirit of the motion, but I did have this exact conversation, with the secretary in advance of this discussion. Not only might an individual member have a medical condition that requires them to take their jacket off, but it's extremely warm in here right now. We know the climate control in the building doesn't always keep up. And my sense is that we certainly don't want to set a precedent that you need to, ask leave of the chamber for someone to be able to remove their jacket. That is a house rule. And here in the Senate, members within their interpretation of the decorum of this body are already in order when they remove their jacket unless someone complains. And then there can be a discussion of replacing your jacket.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Windsor District)]: But I do worry, Mr.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden District)]: President, that we, not go down a path of sort of a dress code enforcement, in advance in the chamber. And in a friendly offering would just ask,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District)]: I don't

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden District)]: know if I'm modifying the motion of the member, but that members be allowed to remove their jackets freely depending on their comfort level without needing to have a medical reason to do so.

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

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, Mr. President. Ordinarily, I agree wholeheartedly with the majority leader. On this, will disagree. I do believe that the decorum of the chamber requires jacket and tie. That being the case, there have been in history very warm days where a senator has made the motion that rules be suspended and that gentlemen be able to remove their jackets. No one has made that motion today. I've made a more limited medically targeted motion. So with that said Mr. President I would not want us to have jackets be optional in the chamber without a rule suspension personally speaking. Thank you.

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

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District)]: Thank you, President. I'll be brief. I just want everyone to know that BGS has done a lot of work, the system is in place and it's starting now.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to allow our senator with poison ivy to take his jacket off. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Nay. The ayes have it. Back to the business that we were at. Eight six zero six, The question is shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary? 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 you have proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on judiciary. 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. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you've ordered third reading of h six zero six. Yes. Oh, yes. I'm I'm right in tune, mister secretary. We will be passing over h nine thirty seven. That brings us to s two zero nine, which 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 Windham.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Windham District)]: Thank you, mister president. This, the house proposal of amendment is located on page three three eight nine of today's calendar. S two zero nine, this was the bill that prohibited administrative arrests for a list of different locations. It builds off of current law, which prohibits administrative arrests while traveling to or from or on premises of a courthouse. The original bill passed out of the Senate on a roll call vote of 27 to two. The other chamber made several changes some of which expanded the scope of the bill and others which narrowed the scope. In terms of expansion, the list of sensitive places now includes state buildings that are owned or wholly controlled by the state, the DMV, and public libraries. In terms of narrowing, the prohibition no longer would apply to traveling to and from most of the listed locations except for courthouses, which is current law, and educational institutions. These arrests can now only happen on the premises of the listed locations. The other chamber also removed locations regulated by the Department of Children and Children and Families and however, state care centers generally are still covered under the term educational institutions and, the underlying cross references. There was also a clarification that reworded an establishment serving food to a food pantry or similar establishment that distributes food. The straw poll in committee was three two zero, and I ask for the senate support in concurring the house proposal of amendment to s two zero nine.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment on s two zero nine? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. No. Ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and the senate has concurred in the house proposal amendment on s two zero nine.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: I do have the bill for you.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We have on the calendar for action h nine thirty one. It was passed by the house on 05/08/2026. It was referred to the committee on education, 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 thirty three ninety three of today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the appropriations of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as recommended by the committee on education. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H nine thirty one, an act relating to miscellaneous changes in education law.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I recognize the senator from Windham, senator Hashim, the report of the committee on education.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Windham District)]: Thank you, mister president. Switching gears here a little bit and talking about the miscellaneous education bill. So section oh, this is located on page three three nine Section one, creates an exception to the moratorium on the approval of initial applications for approved independent schools. Now before, anybody starts, drafting amendments, let me just explain what that first section does. This is a technical change that only impacts therapeutic schools that are currently in existence. It does not allow for the creation of any new approved independent schools. The issue, this exception is trying to resolve is that if a currently operating therapeutic school wants to change ownership, it would technically be captured by the moratorium and would be unable to change its ownership. This amendment, which originally came from the other body, excludes changes in ownership of therapeutic approved independent schools that intend to stay therapeutic approved independent schools from the moratorium if an initial application is required by the state board. Section two. So, there is an entity called the Interstate Compact for Education, and we joined in 1967, and we allegedly left in 1994 except, not quite. I'm not sure if somebody forgot to send an email, but since '94 it turns out we've still been paying dues. This body or this general assembly has been still electing commissioners to send and we've also been enjoying the benefits of being part of the compact. So this language causes Vermont to rejoin the interstate compact for education, and the compact establishes and maintains close cooperation and understanding among executive, legislative, professional, educational, and lay leadership on a nationwide basis at the state and local levels. There are about eight pages that describe the various duties, responsibilities, and policies involved in the compact located on pages three three nine four through three four zero zero. The dues are $53,100 and are already accounted for and built into AOE's budget for FY twenty seven. So abruptly switching gears here, sections three and four, we're gonna talk about sex offenders. This adds a new section to title 16 that requires AOE to request criminal record information for a person, the secretary is prepared to recommend for any full time, part time, or temporary employment or contractual relationship with the agency if such a person will have or has the potential to have unsupervised contact with students. The fee would be paid by the applicant and also requires AOE to request, information from the child protection registry maintained by DCF for anyone they're doing a background check on. The section also prohibits an applicant convicted of a sex offense that requires registration with a sex offender registry for being eligible for employment with the agency. The section also amends the statute that governs the continued validity of criminal record checks done pursuant to title 16 and the maintenance of such records to include AOE in the list of employers the section is applicable to. Section five amends the membership and duties of the intercollegiate sexual harm prevention council. The changes made to this council were agreed to by UVM and the network against domestic and sexual violence. I believe the underlying goal of these changes was to reinvigorate the council and provide a more focused, set of objectives for them to achieve. If you are curious about who the new members are, they are located on page three four zero two and page three four zero three. The new duties now include sharing information about effective practices regarding prevention and response, sexual health education, and strategies from mitigating harm related to sexual violence on college campuses, sharing information about campus activities, publications, and services that promote a campus culture of respect to prevent sexual harm, and sharing information about training for sexual assault prevention and response for college populations. Section six adds the membership and duties of the hazing harassment and bullying advisory council. This section adds about 11 new members to the council located on page three four zero five. The old duties were broad and somewhat vague and required the council to review and coordinate statewide activities for response and prevention to hazing, harassment, and bullying. The new duties require advising and responding on policies for the field, reviewing policies and soliciting input from students, parents, and schools, and they're also required to provide the legislature with a yearly report. Section seven, this has to do I believe this is an appropriation section for the for the HHP Council. Section eight amends the definition of cost saving measure in the energy performance contracting statute to include the word additions. Section nine provides for an effective date of 07/01/2026, and we heard from legislative counsel, the Joint Fiscal Office, the Agency of Education, the Vermont Network against domestic and sexual violence, the University of Vermont, Vermont School Boards Association, the Vermont National Education Association, Energy Efficient Investments Incorporated, a student from Essex High School, several principals, and several school board members. The voting committee was six zero zero, and I ask for the senate support.

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

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. So the Senate Appropriations Committee will take a look at this bill, the various sections have you have some impact, but very minimal impact on the budget. Section one about the approved independent schools, the therapeutic schools that impact was unclear, though we think it's going to be relatively small. In section two on the interstate compact, that expenditure to participate that in that is already factored factored into the agency's base budget and does not represent a new cost. In terms of the background checks, that was a minimal cost at $1,600 and the plan is for that to just be absorbed into the agency of education budget. In terms of the Advisory Council expanding its membership from 12 to 17 members, I believe that was it. Oh, I'm sorry from 13 to 17, then that would be because of the per diems that was approximated to be $21,000 which again, so that will be appropriated from the general fund to AOE for that purpose. Then in terms of the cost saving measure with the addition of facility additions doesn't have a known impact, but again, it's thought to be relatively small and so the vote out of appropriations was six zero one and we asked for the Senate's concurrence.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Rutland District)]: Okay.

[Lt. Gov. 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 Addison.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Thank you, mister president. I have a amendment to this bill I would like to add. It's a change in section 16 b s a of 21.5. I have a brief presentation to say. The purpose the proposed amendment is both legally permissible and constant with long standing legislative practice. The generous general assembly routinely establish standards that shape future collective bargaining when it is determined guardrails are necessary to protect the public's interest. We have clear precedents for this. Laws governing overtime, paid leave, workplace protections, all directly affecting what may be negotiated in a collective bargaining agreement. Most recently, Act 32 expanded employees leave protection and alternative provisions that have previously been negotiated between employers and employees. In the same way this amendment would establish reasonable parameters for future negotiations regarding educational employee healthcare cost. Limited actuarial values and requiring employees to cover first dollar HSAs or HRA obligations are policies, choices that the legislature may lawfully make in order to address the extraordinary growth of school health care insurance costs torn by taxpayers and school districts. Collective bargaining would continue, it would simply proceed within the standards established by the legislature as routinely does in many other areas of the law. Now as the Pro Tem had asked that we should not bring forward amendments that haven't been through committee. Well in this case this one has been around for a while and this amendment was first introduced by the Bronx School Board in efforts to better control school board health cost almost three years ago. The VSP represents our elected school board members, mostly volunteer that are all elected with a very de minimis statement. The number of times in the biennium that the VBSBA has presented this recommendation in the state house has been six times in the state education committee, four times in the house education committee, two times in the senate finance committee, one time in the house general committee, and one time in the house ways and means committee. It is simple change in that statute that we will strike one last best offer without amendment submitted by parties prior to the VLSRB or arbitration hearing in its entirety without amendment. We will be striking that and adding between the last and best offer of each party on an issue by issue basis with or without amendment. It is a simple amendment that could save our taxpayers many dollars. Thank you Mr. President.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is shall the recommendation of proposal of amendment of the committee on education be amended as moved by the senator from Addison. Are you ready for the question? From Bennington.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Bennington District)]: Mister president, it is true that this has generally been around, but the bill to affect this was introduced only in the house for whatever reason. And the senate, education committee took no testimony on this other than occasional references from the Superintendent's Association about the fact they wish this would happen. So there's been, the committee has actually to the extent it came close to voting on this decided not to take it up and not to bring it forward to the and, I think that this is actually a bigger deal than, than we might realize on the surface, and a lot of testimony would be required, and a lot of parties would have a lot of, things to say about it. And it was just not something that the committee had the time to take up this year and didn't. And therefore, I think it would be, quite a shock to the system to have this happen on the senate floor at this point.

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

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: Thank you Mr. President. The Senate Finance Committee which has been working on the finance sections of the education bill and which is also responsible for managing health insurance, hasn't had this bill brought to us, hasn't had a similar proposal brought to us. And at this point, both both the health insurance market is tenuous and the so isn't the balance, financial balance in the education bill. So I couldn't without actually having time to take testimony, I couldn't recommend that we support this.

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

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Windham District)]: Mister president, I am I I see that this is an amendment related to health insurance and contract negotiations, and I would ask if there could be a ruling as to the germane ness of this amendment to the educate the miscellaneous education bill.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Some parts of miscellaneous bills and things like this have done happened previously, so we're going to allow it to be. Senator Chittenden.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, mister president. I assume the amendment is debate.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: It is.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you. So I appreciate, the shout out from the senator from Addison, but his caveat was that if an issue has been around a while, we don't need to show it to committees. Let me tell you, there are a lot of issues that have been around a while, and they've been around a while for various reasons. That being said, mister president, if our education committee and our finance committees, health our and welfare and economic development committees, all of which have an interest in this amendment, have not seen this, I think it would be incredibly irresponsible to add this on the floor with a brief debate. So I will be, voting no mostly on procedural grounds. And with that said, mister president, I hope the chamber will agree. Thank you.

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

[Sen. Scott Beck (Caledonia District)]: Thank you, mister president. I will be voting yes for this amendment. I think it is a very common sense way to change the trajectory of the cost of our beehive health care plans, 23,000 for 23,000 public school employees. I mean we have Vermont has by far the highest staffing ratio in the country in our public schools 23,000 for 78,000 kids and we offer them health insurance and we need a few tools in the toolbox to bend the cost of those plans which are increasingly so far apart from what average Vermonters receive in their healthcare plans where they purchase them privately or through their employer and so I think this is a very common sense way of bending that cost curve and bringing our be high employee plans more in line with what average Vermonters can afford and so I will

[Sen. Terry Williams (Rutland District)]: be voting for this amendment. Thank you.

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

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden Southeast District)]: Thank you Mr. President. So as you will recall last year we passed our last yeah during this particular session, last year, we passed two or three bills that have actually reduced the cost for our school teachers and education staff, and to the extent of reducing premiums between 310% depending on the specific district within which those folks are insured. So we are working on that. We have saved money in from owners' pockets, by reducing those costs. And so this really this is not something that our committee has reviewed and certainly something we will continue to think about is how to reduce health care costs, but this isn't the appropriate way to do it. Thank you.

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

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Thank you, mister president. The reason I brought this amendment forward is because our taxpayers, and it was elected officials like ourselves that brought this forward to say that it will save our taxpayers money. It has been circulated through this building for a while, so I do believe everybody has the premise of what this will do. Again the reason I presented this bill was to help save our taxpayers money. Thank you Mr. President.

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

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: May I interrogate the presenter of the amendment?

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

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: I'm wondering what evidence we have that this amendment would lower our health care costs for our teachers.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Thank you, mister president. I will surmise from a testimony that was given by a by a by an individual that at one point they were in arbitration and the way arbitration works out right now as I'm sure you all know that winter takes off There is no really negotiation. It's best offers brought to the table at the end and the arbitrator has to decide between a or b. He cannot take either a or b an amendment to come to a middle ground which could save, taxpayers money. However, in this instance it was on the HRA of how much will the employee have to put in. The school district wanted it to be 200 the union wanted it to be 100. Testimony was given that made the arbitrator believe that he could not go with the school board's recommendation because of the testimony. So being at how it would save money if they had raised the deductible sum would have brought down the insurance cost a little bit thus saving taxpayers money. Thank you Mr. President.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: So Mr. President I'm understanding the evidence is we have one individual that used to be an arbitrator that said there was one instance where they could maybe have split the difference. They could have gone with the lower one but for some technicality, they haven't had it. They didn't they couldn't go with the lower, the $100, which would even save more than splitting the difference. Is that my my understanding of the evidence that we have?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: That is

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: correct, mister president. My concern is that from what what I know about that there isn't maybe there's this one anecdotal evidence but there isn't clear evidence that this would lower the health insurance cost automatically. The arbitrator could choose the lower cost Right now, and there and there's a negotiation. You don't always go to arbitration. But if the arbitrate arbitor, he or she can choose a lower cost option. There's many things that the arbitrator is looking at. Cost my understanding is not one of them I guess that's another question is the arbitrator looking at cost when they're deciding which proposal to take.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Mr President I'm not going to speak on that I'm going to speak on behalf of who brought this, originally brought this amendment forward on how it, they believe it will help in negotiations to make more fair and just negotiations at the end. That is the only reason I brought this amendment forward.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Okay. Thank the senator. Mister president, I think this is an example of why we can't support this amendment on the floor. We don't have enough evidence that there it would meet the purpose of the amendment to lower cost. I agree we want to lower health care costs. It's a it's a main driver of costs not only with our teachers contracts but all businesses are suffering from the increase of health insurance. I don't think there's evidence that health insurance increases from the teachers are based on the arbitration process but just the overall cost and and health care cost. I will also be voting no on this amendment.

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

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, Mr. President. I rise a second time to just provide a bit of history about the health care bargaining issue in general. So if senators were here, they might remember, but most of the chamber obviously was not here. Originally, statewide healthcare bargaining was something demanded by the governor. And the governor demanded it in terms of saving money in the system. And so there was in his first biennium, there were vetoes issued on the budget and the tax bill, and we were not allowed to go forward and adjourn until we had put together a statewide health care bargaining proposal out of the Ed Committee. I was chairing at that time. We spent about two months working with all the stakeholders in the room. So we had union representatives in the room. We had school boards. We had superintendents. We had principals, all of the V's, all of the usual suspects, as we call them, affectionately in committee. And we worked on it together. And so at every stage, we had buy in from all those folks. At the end of the day, when we were ready to vote, I asked if there was anybody who opposed the legislation. The answer was no. Because both sides thought we had set up a fair system where they would be able to win as often as not. It has turned out that the union's proposals have been favored by the independent arbors. And predictably enough, the school boards have wanted to change the structure of the game to make it more likely that their proposals will win. I don't oppose that change in this speech. What I do oppose is the idea that we would step in and unilaterally make a change favoring one side in what is now a system that was very painstakingly set up to make sure that it was equal and acceptable to all parties. So with that said, mister president, I think it this again points to the last minute nature of this and the need for additional testimony. Certainly, if a bill came forward next year, the Ed Committee and the Economic Development Committee, which handles labor, could take a serious look at this. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Sen. Terry Williams (Rutland District)]: Roll call, mister president.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Roll call has been requested, and when the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. Senator from Chittenden.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central District)]: I wonder if I might inquire of

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: the, presenter of the amendment. The presenter's interrogated.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central District)]: So, mister president, I have struggled with this issue. It's come up many times. My question though is previous the previous comments were that this could potentially benefit one side of the debate or the other. I I wonder, mister president, though, if the, presenter of the amendment would agree with that because my sense that the current current law is meant to bring parties together. Because if you are on either side of this negotiation, the current law where it's one or the other, in my humble opinion with negotiating on different boards, and I've served on too many of them if you ask my lovely spouse. If you have only the opportunity for what you present, you're more likely to come closer to where you think it ultimately will land. Whereas if this were to go away, mister president, I'd be curious, I think that both parties would actually be much more motivated to have extreme positions or more extreme positions further away from a middle ground in hopes that the arbiter would then choose something based on those arguments that is a mishmash or a collaboration of those things. So my question to the to the presenter is, how are you certain that this would necessarily benefit, in this case, the school boards on the other side of this argument, as opposed to, I think it's usually the NEA on the other side or isn't quite possible that this could ultimately result in the arbiters choosing even less favorable or more costly health insurance plans Mr. President?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Thank you Mr. President. Thank you for the question. This is for the last part of the negotiation getting down to the end and it's three sometimes it's one second point sometimes it's two. From what I understand from testimony is between the two groups they've gone all the way down through with their best and they have a final two, four sticking points whatever it may be. I believe that the school boards and the NEA would both benefit that you're down to your last dollars and you're gonna both walk away neither you're very happy, but you've come to agreement that what it works best for both the taxpayer and the union. So I don't believe this will affect arbitration because they'll still start with the same numbers and even when you break it down to like when you buy a car and you go to the dealer this is your final number they'll say yes and then you go well I'm going to be here and often or not they'll both come back down into meeting in the middle. I know that's extreme usage but that's basically the way it works. I don't believe I believe this will be a better tool for both parties to maybe get a more robust agreement?

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central District)]: I I thank the senator.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden Central District)]: So I have struggled with this. I've talked about it in the hallways of people, but I'm not persuaded on the premise of this argument that this will necessarily save the taxpayers money. And in fact, I think it could be quite the opposite. The arbiters could then do a mishmash, which would actually be even further away from where this current policy sorry about the keys. Where this current policy is bringing people towards the middle, and absent this construct, I do think both parties are gonna move further away, which will ultimately result in who knows, but it's not assured that it would actually translate to less dollars spent on health care for our hardworking, teachers and teaching aids. So, mister president, I too will be voting no on this amendment. Since the roll call was called, I feel like I had to speak on that. Thank you.

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

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: me. Mister president, I think this discussion points out why we don't make important choices on the floor. People believe, people think, people just have a gut feeling this would work. I believe there's books and treaties and studies that have there's libraries full of studies on labor negotiations and what happens when one side does this and the other side does that. I personally got sent to Harvard School of Government to learn how to negotiate as as a member of this body who has to do committees of conference today. It's not something that you do by your I think it would save money. That's why we have a committee process so that we can sit down and hear all the thoughts and all the expert opinion and all the literature, and then we put a proposal together which can be brought here and debated with information that backs up the proposal. This is risky. It might help, it might not. But health insurance, the committee that handles it, there's another issue here, which is our hospitals. There's so much money in the system, it's going to pay our hospital costs. If we pull money out, the hospitals are going to get less. There is an awful lot of work being done both it with the insurance in industry, our whole one insurance company, and the hospitals and trying to negotiate and get those costs down. It's a delicate balance. And if we pull up one of those pickup sticks, it could all collapse. And to make that decision on the floor is risky, and I will be voting no.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? If so, the secretary shall call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Ruth? No. Senator Beck? Yes. Senator Benson? Yes.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: Senator Westman?

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden Southeast District)]: No. Senator White? No.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator Williams? Yes. Those voting yes, 11. Those voting no, 19, and the amendment has failed. The question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on education as amended by the committee on education. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of h nine thirty one.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Bennington District)]: Okay.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: S one eighty nine was passed by the house with a proposal of amendment. The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? Senator from Chittenden Southeast, I believe you're speaking to s one eighty nine. Senator Lyons?

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden Southeast District)]: Yes. Thank you, mister president. Your committee on health and welfare did meet and discuss the changes that were proposed by the house, and we are going to concur with those changes. As you recall, this is, this is legislation that would ask for a review of any hospital services that are going to be, eliminated from the hospitals. In the bill that we passed over to the other body, we had, in in included a public process so that folks who are within the community would understand which hospital services were going to be terminated. As the bill came back to us from the House, the there are specific services listed that you'll see in the proposal. There is in addition a period of time before a public disclosure where the hospital can work with the Green Mountain Care Board and the Agency of Human Services to to look at the effect within the regulatory environment and perhaps, either change their decision or confirm their decision. Then, after that, then the proposal goes forward as we had in our bill with, public process. And then after that, the hospital has the right to either terminate or change its decision going forward. And there is no decision making on the part of either the board, Green Mountain Care Board, or of the agency of human services for this. So it remains within the hospital decision making process. We concurred with the house and think it, adds to the the bill as it passed from the senate. Thank you, mister president. And straw poll was unanimous.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment on s one eighty nine? Senator from Windsor.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. May I hire the reporter?

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

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Windsor District, Majority Leader)]: Mister president, might we view this as the next step in, our efforts to transform our hospital delivery and coordinate regionally the work of our hospitals? Is that is this sort of the next step in our health care and hospital transformation process?

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden Southeast District)]: Thank you, mister president. It is a part of the transformation process. Certainly, we are looking to hospitals to reduce costs, but at the same time to ensure that services will be available in a in a in a specified geographic area. So in that sense, yes, it is a part of that transformation process.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District)]: And would the reporter be kind enough to share with us

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Windsor District, Majority Leader)]: how our hospitals respond to this bill and

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District)]: these these proposals.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden Southeast District)]: Well, the hospitals actually proposed a good deal of, the of the bill and are supportive of what is here before us. Thank you.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we've house proposal of amendment on f one eighty nine.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: We

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: now have on the calendar for action h five fifty introduced on 01/06/2026. Oh, nope. Sorry. It says five fifty on my script. It says five seventy eight on the bill. Let's try that again. Oh, gotcha. There we go. We have h five seventy eight for third reading. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H five seventy eight, an act relating to penalties and procedures for animal cruelty offenses.

[Lt. Gov. 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 have passed h five seventy eight in concurrence with proposal of amendment. We now have h seven twenty seven for third reading. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Senator from Washington.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Yes. Thank you, mister president. I have an amendment for third reading on this bill. It's a a few words amendment. It will be passed out. I did contact the chair and some secretary to get this into the calendar but given my other advice, on on Monday, I wasn't able to get that done. Apologize for not getting into the calendar. If you have your calendar from yesterday, which I know you all keep around, page thirty thirty four is where this because we today's calendar doesn't have the text of the bill, and it's not in the as introduced if you save that. But, basically, section d of section section one subsection d titled distributed real no renewable generation requires the data center was to get built to maximize the construction and operation of on-site renewable energy generation to the greatest extent possible, It's fine. Appreciate that. But also says the renewable energy plant that directly emits air contaminants as defined in The USA fuel combustion does not qualify under this section. So I think the intent here was that if you were admitting, if you had a an emitting renewable energy source for power generation that it should be allowed to be considered renewable energy. I think wood energy is a is a renewable source. And specifically, I I am a big supporter of wood heat and advanced wood heating in Vermont. It's it's important for our forest products sector. And so I wanna make sure that a thermal plant that's heating a building a lot of these buildings are more concerned about air conditioning. But if they do need heat and they have a advanced wood heating system, that it would not be caught up in this issue about emitting air contaminants. Because that definition, if you look it up, includes dust, mist, and for basically anything. So it yeah. The amendment just adds after under the subsection where it says does not qualify under the subsection, adding the words that says unless it is a thermal energy plan. So that would allow thermal energy plants that are renewable to be used in one of these data centers if we think anyone a data center would like this would ever get built. Thank you.

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

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. I I did hear from, a fellow senator from Washington about this, though the committee did not have an opportunity to review this amendment, so I'd ask for a very brief recess.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Just before we take a recess, I would like to make everyone aware that you can find the language that is being amended on page eleven ninety eight of today's journal at the top of the page in subdivision small d. We will take a brief recess. Will senate please come to order? Senator from Washington.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. So the National Resource and Energy Committee reviewed this amendment, clarified that this amendment would still keep intact the need for renewable energy or for the the for them to have renewable energy on-site, and that the the modification that is presented by this amendment would just modify that they what qualifies as a renewable energy plant, and that renewability is still intact. And so otherwise, for the rest of it. So on a vote of five zero, we are in support of this amendment.

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

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H seven twenty seven, an act relating to sustainable data center deployment.

[Lt. Gov. 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 Washington.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. There were a few questions that were asked on the floor at second reading, and so I have some answers I wanted to offer. So one is was a question about the taxes and fees that are on electricity, and so indeed that includes the gross receipts tax, the energy efficiency charge, and depending on the end use of that electricity, non exempt so there are there is some sales tax on on some end uses though though not for others. There was another question about the large whether or not large load service contracts were normal or if this was sort of a new idea and I was able to get in touch with distribution a distribution utility who informed me that this is not new, that this is something that they have had in place for other large consumers of electricity, for example, global foundries, had a had a similar situation in terms of having a a one off contract. And then there was another question around how might something be that is not a data center now ultimately be caught up by this bill. And so did clarify that as it references as the definition references 51 or five one eight two one zero of the 2022, North American industry classification system that that is, titled computing infrastructure providers, data processing, web hosting, and related services. So in order for a a industry to ultimately be caught up by that, their their primary activity would have to fall under that classification, and they would also have to be using 20 megawatts of power. And so as long as there was any, you know, data processing was an ancillary purpose to their to their business, then that would not would not count. So I and I believe there's another question about money, but that I think was answered on the fourth. So I think money. Alright. Thanks, senate.

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

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland District)]: Thank you, mister president. There were a few comments, last Friday made on the floor that I I thought bagged, some type of response, some type of feedback. Lived kind of lived my life as a tech technologist that's following the Marine Corps, and that's, so technology is not something that really that I fear. I do understand the need to guide technologies growth, whether it's AI or data centers or what have you. I do applaud the National Resources Committee's effort on this, particular bill. There was a comment made about huge power consumption. Yes. Obviously, it's a data center. It's chewing up a lot of chewing up a lot of, power. There was a a comment made about contractors to build. They're temporary. Indeed, they are temporary. I've got a contractor. I've built many things in the desert and elsewhere, and you live there, you build it, and then a a majority of the contractors retreat, and we leave the service staff, but that's part of the process. It's the same when we're building a bridge or renovating a bridge or or building, constructing Interstate 22 A. It it requires contractors to build and remain behind. Only 20 employees? Yes. But it's 20 more employees than we had prior to the project. And the but the real point is as the chair of Natural Resources address tax revenue, the impact, it's huge. It's a lot of power. It's a lot of tax. And and our hopefully, finance committee, certainly takes note of that. And, I just wanna say fundamentally, I I highly support the bill, and I I encourage the, the chamber to do likewise. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. No. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have passed h seven twenty seven in concurrence with proposal of amendment. We now have h seven forty for third reading. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Senator from Rutland.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Rutland District)]: Thank you, mister president. I have a amendment to the floor that should be being passed out. And sorry. I rise off this amendment, which basically it's a strike all amendment strikes out h seven forty and inserts repeal the clean heat standard or the affordable heat act. And I rise to offer this amendment because I believe it's the main subject matter of h seven forty. H seven forty is not merely administrative reporting bill. It concerns greenhouse gas policy, emissions tracking, fuel suppliers, heating fuels, and the state's continuing climate regulatory structure. The affordable heat act operates within that same policy framework. Both involve greenhouse gas emissions, heating fuel regulation, fuel supplier accountability, and the implementation of the March climate policy architecture. These issues are connected both legally and practically, and I believe the senate should discuss them openly and directly on the floor. Mister president, I understand, the vote count in this chamber. I understand a month amendment may not prevail today. But I believe Vermont deserves to hear the the discussion publicly and on the record before they continue expanding the same climate policy framework that has generated so much concern across the state. When the formal heat act passed, the public discussion surrounding that legislation included the understanding that there would be a future legislative review, a check back. Before implementation would be forward, Many members serving in this chamber today supported that vote, that check that. My concern is not personal. My concern is institutional. Because of the biennium transition, the originate originally checked back mechanism effectively died procedure. The Public Utility Commission later determined that the original authorization pathway was now no longer operative. In response, I introduced h 68 to bring that check back before the legislature to the senate and the house could fully address it. That bill was not taken up. H740 continues building that greenhouse gas reporting and regulatory structure involving fuel regulators, regulate suppliers and emissions concerns. The amendment for the HEAT Act relies on that same underlying framework, tracking emissions, regulating fuel regular related greenhouse gases, and integrating obligations connected to heating fuels. Expanding fuel oversight and energy usage, these are not isolated issues. They are components of the same broader climate policy. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Rutland, I would like to point out that your amendment says senator Williams moves that the senate proposed to the house to amend the bill by inserting two new sections to read as follows. So your amendment is insert these sections. Senator from Washington. Thank you, mister president. Senator? I will recognize the senator from Rutland first as the presenter.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Rutland District)]: So I'm I'm sorry. I I, having a bad eye day, and I apologize.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: No no apology necessary, senator.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Rutland District)]: Thank you, mister president.

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

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. Could I clarify that the well, I'd I'd actually ask for a brief recess.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden District)]: Let's go.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We will take a brief recess. The senate please come to order. Senator from Washington.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. I rise to offer a substitute amendment, which is going to be passed out presently And would point out that this is something that we had discussed in committee. We one of my goals in committee is as much as is reasonably possible to get to a five zero vote if we can. And as you may recall, this came out of this bill came out of our committee three two. This amendment that we are going to

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden Southeast District)]: be looking

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District)]: at, well, before I leave that, I would say that in committee when I offered to include a repeal of the clean heat standard, we did not, there was not consensus, at that point. Though, I also think that it is worth sticking to, this idea that if something is if you're going to fight about something, it ought to be worth fighting for. And I would say that at this point, this amendment or the the repeal of the clean heat standard is language that is not operable. Like, we are not we're not doing it. I think we have all understood that we are not doing it, and so I actually consider this repeal of the clean heat standard actually to be housekeeping language, that it is it is just good hygiene. If we're not going to if we're not planning to enact it, then we should repeal it. And I think there has been considerable confusion with the public about that point, and so to remove it so that it is abundantly clear to the public, that we are not doing it, I think, is is reasonable. So, that is what is in sections four and five. And but to move backwards, under the the greenhouse gas inventory portion of the of my substitute amendment. It does include an extra phrase at the end that that includes it just it it protects individual identities. That was already assumed to be true. However, this is just belt and suspenders language to ensure that it doesn't get interpreted any more specifically more granularly than that. It also includes the money for this, as I mentioned at second reading, that there was 300,000 appropriated for this endeavor and that was reserved in the budget. And so this language removes the contingency language and just added adds the money to the bill, which strengthens our position in the conference committee. I would also, just add that it is something that I if we were going to repeal the clean heat standard, I do I would like to express that I I wish that we had been able to come to that agreement in committee, though it is not again, it's not something that is new in indeed, we did discuss this in committee. And with that oh, oh, with that, I would like to ask for the Natural Resources and Energy Committee to come together and if we could take a brief recess to review this amendment.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We'll take a brief recess. Senate, please come to order. The question is, shall the senate proposal amendment be amended as offered by the senator from Washington, senator Watson, as substituted? Nope. Somewhere close?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District)]: Yeah. This one.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: So the question is, shall the amendment proposed by the senator from Rutland be substituted as offered by the senator from Washington? Are you ready for the question?

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Windsor District)]: Roll call, mister president.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Roll call has been requested, and when the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. Senator from Addison.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the presenter of the amendment?

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

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Thank you, mister president. I understand and with this amendment, this is supposed to register to roughly use what how much sector fuel is used throughout Vermont. Is that is that correct?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District)]: If the senator is asking about aggregate data, the answer is no. If it if the senator is asking about, more specific data, for example, at, say, the county or town level, then the answer is yes.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Thank you, mister president. My question, I'm trying to get an answer on it. We have roughly 13,000,000 visitors that come to the state of Vermont and you consume, transportation transportation fuel and what have you that obvious affects what Vermont's bottom carbon footprint is like. Do we have a way of calculating that?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District)]: Is the senator asking how we would know how much, visitors consume in in in terms of, gasoline?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Yes, mister president. And if that affects what would be our carbon footprint as a total for Vermont. Is that taken into consideration when we talk our carbon footprint per capita?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. The amount of, fossil fuels sold in Vermont is what is captured by this bill.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Thank you, mister president. I thank you for senator.

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

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Windsor District)]: Thank you, mister president. I will be voting yes because I on the motion related to substituting this amendment from this the senator from Washington in lieu of the amendment presented to us by the senator from Rutland. I will also be a yes vote if we get down the line and that's ultimately what's presented to us. Although I do wanna take this opportunity to just discuss how disappointing this whole entire conversation has been for young Vermonters who are watching us peel back important climate change related work that we told them we supported, that we told them we were moving towards reducing emissions, lowering energy costs with a vision for the future. And what I have seen on this floor has been not attempts at solutions that meet compromise and support those goals, but rather a whole hog movement to discredit climate science. So I wanna be very clear that while I'm supporting the substitute amendment throughout, I am not in support of the rhetoric that says that global warming is not the largest existential threat facing humanity as the senator formerly to my left said on a weekly basis on this floor. It is not to say to young Vermonters that we have stopped caring. And I would ask that my colleagues who are so vehement to represent their constituencies related to this repeal, that they also work with us to find solutions to this existential crisis that is is worsening our natural disasters, costing us billions of dollars, and also encouraging us to have violent engagement on an international scale. If you are concerned about rising gas prices, if you are concerned about rising energy costs, recording and understanding that use is the first step to lowering those costs. It's the first step to reducing that usage so that we, as a collective, can reduce our energy use so that we're not purchasing or in need of any type of fuel, whether it be fossil fuel or renewable energy. That reduction is a part of this conversation. And while I am in support again of the substitute amendment and I will be voting yes for that, and I will be voting yes ultimately if it passes, I hope that my colleagues who are so supportive of their constituents' concerns talk to the 15 year olds in their district, talk to the 16 year olds in their district who can't vote, but will be the recipients of all of the choices we make at this moment as we continue to see rising temperatures and increased national, natural disasters. Thank you.

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

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central, President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, mister president. I would like to ask for a ten minute recess, and I will speak with my leadership team. And, if we could come back in at, let's say, five o, mister president.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We will take a ten minute recess.