Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: We are live.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Live. Senate appropriations, March 20. Am I right? Yeah. March 20. We are going through bills, last day of crossover. We have to get all these bills out or they die. So the first bill we're going to start to prevent from dying is three twenty five. We have alleged counsel with us there. I'll let you introduce yourself. You already went through the bill. So you have an amendment? We do have

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Yes. LNJC has the Office of Legislative Council. So, yes, I did prepare an amendment for the committee. It's draft 1.1 dated March 17, which feels that I don't think I drafted it that long ago. It is just removing the the appropriation section. So I'll do the strikeout section 19 appropriations and then remembers the rest of the bill. The two appropriations that were in this bill were not specifically connected to the underlying other parts of the program. So I didn't think you needed any contingent language, just striking the appropriations and then

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: If the bill is written, it just would be appropriations for that one.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Yep. Yep. None of the policy is contingent.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yep. No.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Sorry, Blake likes the bill too.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: The Act two fifty bill.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: It's the Act two fifty bill.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Or the Act one is the one bill.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Oh, sure.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: It is. Yeah. Both.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. I will entertain a motion to move the bill favorably with this amendment.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: So moved.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So moved. So what are we doing? Strucking out the appropriations? Mhmm. Yep. This is just a vote to strike out the appropriations. This is a this is not we're not gonna do two votes. So this will be a vote to amend it and pass the paper. If you'd like to have two votes, can. No. We're voting on the striking out the amount of the appropriations.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. Correct.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Striking out the appropriations and move the vote and move the vote. Out of committee. You could vote no. Do whatever you want. That's yeah. Yeah. It's the but the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee, we're removing the appropriations. We're not making a comment on the underlying Correct. Value of land or

[Sen. Robert Norris]: Okay. Alright. Alright. Date with twentieth?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Had a conference. '20. You could vote yes with explanation. That explains Mhmm. Holding And only we know. Trying to get out of here. But I appreciate it. Yeah. Okay. I'll set. Senator Baruth, senator Brennan, yes. Senator Lyons, senator Norris Yep. Senator Watson Yep. Senator Westman Yep. Senator Perchlik? Yeah. K. Who's gonna report it, senator Watson? Watson. What? Me? No way. I wasn't at the point. I wanna feel

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: all the sit I know you wanted to do it. You have to sit

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: down and then stand right here.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Yeah. Right.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I assume you're reporting. Okay. Thank you. You want these back? Thank

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: you.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We're gonna do quick work on s 64. Did you are you here to tell us about the the problem with this? Is there a physical map for them? Yes. Did you do one?

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes. I did. I can sit in the chair

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: and Yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Very high level. Which

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: we have people wanted to see we have a letter from which maybe you're gonna mention, a letter from Secretary of State's office clarifying that they do not need money for this. Did you like Jen to go first or no? I'm gonna be Okay.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Governor, joint fiscal office. This you have the fiscal note for us '64. It is it will be one of the shorter runs I write all year. The There is right. So it is would expand the scope of optometrists to provide advanced procedures, including certain surgical injection procedures, procedures that currently are required to be performed by ophthalmologists. And so this would create a specialty. So there's an existing specialty license in in statute.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: It would

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: create an advanced therapeutic special procedure specialty for optometrists. They would, in order to gain the specialty, pay a $100 fee the first time when they gain the specialty, it's not a license that we use. And so OPR estimates that there are about 50 optometrists based on accumulation from other states. And we took the logics the same way we would estimate this. So about 50% of professionals would adopt a specialty. So new minimal revenue in fiscal year twenty seven and then a $100 here and there to a new optometrist. Take advantage of the specialty. And, yes, the letter from OPR, would have said roughly the same thing. So a little bit of context within the professional regulatory fee fund, if the profession has a board, which optometrists do, Fees paid as a part so resources and fees that are paid into the professional regulatory fee fund by optometrists have to be used to regulate the optometry profession. That has to stay within the board. And this is different from advisor professions, which are able to pull resources. But OPR indicates that there are enough resources within that board of optometry, enough fee revenue generated to cover the regulation of this expanded scope.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: There's no renewal fees? It's just a one time fee?

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It's a one time fee. OPR did testify in Senate Finance that that's gonna be something they revisit. But this was, I think, enacted last year, the specialty. And there are specialties in other professions. Does the medical board have? The medical board is within the Department of Health.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And so it's They also have jurisdiction, I assume over ophthalmologists.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Ophthalmologists depending on whether they are an MD regulated by the Board of Medical Practice or a Doctor of Osteopathy regulated by the office professional regulation, they could fall into either.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And there's the fee structure, they're very different and all that. But we don't need to get into that, but there's a different, because you're paying the medical board to collect their own fees. Assume.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Or Yes. There's a whole other yeah. Just do the rest of We

[Sen. Richard Westman]: won't go over this. Yep. So

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: it's $100 specialty fee. So it's not referred to in the bill, but because it's a specialty that they create or it's a specialty that yes, is. It's already in existence. Are there other specialties now under ophthalmology license? Not under op yes, optometry. There are no specialties for them, but other

[Sen. Richard Westman]: professions have no specialties.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And then it's up to OPR to decide the regulations of that specialty license, like the requirements.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Pretty specific in the bill.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah, that's what they're doing. That's what the bill is.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, that's

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: what the bill is.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: It's great specialty.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. Okay. Any questions about the fiscal impact? And just do do people know wanna hear a run through of the bill? I think it's pretty clear and you probably received a lot of emails. And it's also a bill that was introduced last year and I think it's been introduced other years. Twenty years. Yeah. But it seems like it's been several times in the eight years I've been here. Talk to my constituents on both sides of the issue. So if people do not think we need to walk through so much counsel, I would entertain a motion to move the bill without any amendment. Just move the bill favorably. So moved. So moved. Senator Baruth? Senator Brennan? Yes. Senator Lyons? Senator Norris? Yes. Senator Watson? Yes. Senator Westman? Yes. Senator Perchlik? Yes. Reporter? Could be senator Lyons. Yeah. Think did you say this?

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: She did

[Sen. Richard Westman]: not She did

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: not go for it. Oh, she did not go it. That's why I'll you're ready to go.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's tough.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I'll I'll record it. Okay. Thank you, Senator Marius.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'm just recording it. Yeah. Doing some crap. Just Yes. Pass it up.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: There is no get to use your favorite word.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: De minimis. There is no there

[Sen. Richard Westman]: is no fact. There's not even It's

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: not even

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: de minimis.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Just get up and say de minimis and sit down. Better practice.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Hopefully Bradley is running down the hall as we speak. He did prepare a Med and Breathe that's on your website today.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yes. I have an amendment here.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: So I'll stop for a moment.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Did we can hear when he he was here at Doctorsville, and he had you here for

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: And for yes.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Kirk and I

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: were here. The whole event. Yep.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: We're gonna go to do the amendment.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Here's the You don't like the amendments? Oh, I see. I don't like the amendment. Three twenty three. Here's another one.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's it. Chittenden, join us. So welcome. Thank you. We're talking about status three twenty three. Do you want to say anything about the amendment you prefer?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden]: Just the amendment says what it says. It strikes sections twenty four and twenty five, the large farm and medium farm permitting provisions in s three twenty three.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And then and then there that's also the section that says that the general fund would backfill those The loss.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden]: But those sections do not direct the general fund to do that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That is that's a separate request in the general fund budget, I believe. Okay, alright, because that's in the ags. That's correct. The government's budget does that. Yeah. So we would want to adjust that. The fees remain to be, we keep the fees in, we'd want to take that extra appropriation to I would say We wouldn't want to give the money they don't need. Any comments, questions? But we're striking the fees. We're striking the fees. Striking the fees

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden]: as

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: they are instead of reducing them to zero. The fees as they are today, which are like 2,001 thousand dollars

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden]: 2,500 for large front 51 per BTR.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. So those are the bills of zero. We're gonna keep them at 2,500. This amendment keeps them at where they are, 2,550. That's correct. And then in the budget, if they keep the fees, we would reduce ASM's budget by $230,000 if they'll get the fees or in the budget or otherwise, bill, those fees would be reduced to zero and then we'd have to make sure that $230,000 stays in Ag's budget.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Well, unless we cut the number of grants going

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And

[Sen. Richard Westman]: there are about nine different grants that this or there's a whole bunch of grants within this area.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right, so it's not really the money is all put into the clean water content at least. So it's not their use for the administration of a large farm program. But a lot of their regulations about clean water.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: That is correct though.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Yes. Yes. Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Got that straight, Senator? Not at all. Go ahead. And also moving target at this point. Yeah. And like all the things that we're cutting, our trustee JFO has a list of all the things that we're doing. So basically what we will be doing next week is starting to look at that list. We'd say, here's the bill that the house has passed. Here's all the things that we cut. Here are things that we might wanna add. How are we gonna prioritize that with the money we have?

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Sorry, this is a slightly different topic, on that question, I'm anticipating having a letter come from natural resources. When would those letters to the probation community be useful? Or do we know yet if we don't know this?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Well, sooner is better than later. But but I would assume that they wouldn't be any earlier than when the house passes the budget because you it's helpful to know what's in there and then you kind of look at what's made crossover Mhmm. And had other information. So I'd figure in the next two weeks

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And I was gonna, hopefully, maybe even send out some direction of saying. I already got a letter from Ag, for example. Oh, you did? But to kind of describe what would be the most helpful. Because if the committees could prioritize

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Like, economic development had a whole bunch. They just said, here's all of our things that we want, the different bills they sent over. I said, well, could you prioritize them? At first it was like, no, they're just

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Just all of them.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And they want to prioritize in each bill, but it really has to be a master list of prioritization Mhmm. Of everything, of all bills. Okay. Keep the universe of possibilities. Keep the deep private. You could put it into a box. What was that box chart? Mentioned box dot chart?

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, a box plot. Box plot. Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. So with that, I will entertain a motion to amend three twenty three and pass favorably. So moved. Senator Watson. Okay. Senator Baruth. Senator Brennan. Yes. Senator Lyons, Senator North Yes. Senator Watson Yes. Senator Westman Yes. Senator Perchlik Yes.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Who's gonna report?

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: I unless he wants to

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: do it, I'll do it.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: I'll do it. I'll do it.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Oh, you're gonna do it? I can do it. Okay. Know. An important program. So

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: yes. Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Did you do next, we're gonna talk about s one nine nine. Thank you.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Before I leave that, I I may just if I'm gonna report it, I may just wanna into it. Just wanna make sure that I understand

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: What we're doing.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: What we're doing and so I can how to best explain it. I think I get it, but details. Did you still leave me here?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Here you go. S one ninety fiscal note.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Thank

[Sen. Richard Westman]: you.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. We have amendments. That's one ninety. Thank you. Here's s one ninety amendment. And you, counselors, you yesterday, you gave us the rundown of the bill. Do you wanna say anything about the amendment you drafted?

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure again Jen Harping, Office of Legislative Counsel. So this the fiscal impact in this bill was the $50,000 appropriated to the treasurer's office to pay potentially pay for consultants for the Public Employee Health Benefit Authority study committee. And so the

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's the one that they would look at blending the teachers and the state employees.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: State employees and the college and public college and university and the municipal employees. Right. Right. So this amendment from this committee would just strike out well it would put in strike out the appropriation in subsection I and it would add in language where it authorizes the hiring of consultants, it would say, to the extent funds are made available for this purpose.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So can you go to I.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So and then I

[Sen. Richard Westman]: is So

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I didn't show it. I mean, I can put that in. I have it ready to put up as well.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: I can write it up to

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: you just to remember what I is.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So I is the $50,000

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Oh, okay.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To the treasurer for the consultants. So this would now allow in the language that said study committee may engage the services of one or more consultants or firms to assist with facilitating meetings and public hearings and preparing its report. This would add to the extent funds are made available for that purpose.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. And then strike out the

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then strike out I, the appropriations And

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: that $50,000 will be added to the list.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Think there's a screeners error of missing period, maybe at the very end.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. This is not a it's just saying that you In

[Sen. Richard Westman]: its entirety, you mean?

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: In its entirety?

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't believe we that is our style.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Okay. No. That's fine. I'm happy to

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because it is all sort of one thought. Cool. And then there had been I think some concern about work still ongoing or discussions down the hall with hospitals and the Green Mountain Care Board. Think that has been satisfactorily resolved with an amendment to be forthcoming from the five members of the health and welfare committee testimony.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Yeah. Given that they seem to have come to an agreement on that, I'll move it with the amendment. Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Senator Westman has moved the amendment. Are there any comments, questions about motion? If not, clerk can call the roll. Senator Baruth. Senator Brennan, yes. Senator Lyons voted yesterday, Senator Norris? Yes. Senator Watson? Yes. Senator Westman? Yep. Senator Perchlik? Yes.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We're late. They're ahead of schedule. Or He's early, but you're very

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We're we're we're

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: He's late.

[Nolan Langlois (Joint Fiscal Office)]: He'll try.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: She tries. Oh, thanks. She did report it, you think? She did say she wanted to report. Yeah. Thought so.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Hi. Can do this?

[Sen. Richard Westman]: I'm gonna do that for the next three minutes.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Maybe not three minutes. But but because we haven't heard the other bills we have heard, these two bills we have not heard. So I'd like to quick run through. And 142, we do have an amendment, do we not? Do we We need do. I don't.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Didn't There's a cost at this time.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Here is the fiscal note, the one for two. So if you wanna give us a quick run through. Great.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. This one actually has it's easy to split it. It's not a strike at all. Let me just play up the bill as introduced.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Oh, the bill we just got today.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So this is put it on the screen. S142 and then health and welfare has an amendment, but it is not a strike at all. So the bill has introduced, I think senator Lyons maybe gave you a description yesterday, but it creates a what's called a pathway to licensure for internationally trained physicians and medical graduates. The idea here being that they somebody who has received a medical degree in another country would work with a participating health care facility, which is a hospital, a federally qualified health center or community center that has the capacity to a community health center that has the capacity to evaluate them and kind of train them on US medicine. To the extent that's different, that they would that person could receive a provisional license to practice with supervision by one or more physicians at the participating health care facility. This would be issued by the Board of Medical Practice. There's certain criteria that the person has to meet around training, experience, examinations, and not have not have any disqualifying criteria. And so they would have a provisional license for two years and then and this would only allow them to practice at that participating health care facility with supervision. And then after two years, they could apply for a limited license to practice medicine as long as they were gonna be working that you know, I hadn't offered employment and then after two years with a limited license, they could apply for a full unrestricted license. So the pathway is two years of provisional license two years of limited license and then gold by future assuming they hit all the milestones along the way. So, again, the two year limited license and and then there's a bunch of data collection and reporting to be done by the board of medical practice talking about the inquiries that they're getting and applicants for provisional and limited licensure where these folks are coming from as far as their country of origin and licensing country and country of training, how many provisional licenses, limited licenses were issued or refused, and if they're refused, why, how many people successfully completed the whole pathway process, where they're working where the people are working once they're in their provisional and limited licensure and once they're fully licensed, just get a sense of how that is all for that. So that would be an annual report every April. And then the Board of Medical Practice and Department of Health is directed to adopt rules to implement the pathway to licensure. And then we get to the Senate Health and Welfare Committee's amendment. The Board of Medical Before

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: you get to that, yeah. So does it not start till after the When does it start that they can apply for the

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: it's gonna

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: change in the So under the bill as introduced, which was introduced last year, it was gonna be 07/01/2026. So health and welfare amended it. But as part of the health and welfare amendment as well, the Board of Medical Practice was not super keen on the proposal in the bill and so they wanted to come up with maybe an alternative pathway to licensure and so that is what the Senate Health and Law Firm Committee amendment would do. Introduced. It keeps that whole pathway, but then it directs the and so under this amendment, amendment the people could start the program would start in July 2028 with rulemaking starting in July 2027. You'll see that in effective date section. And so in the meantime, by January 2027, the Department of Health in collaboration with the Board of Medical Practice would come back with a report detailing an alternative pathway to licensure that's different from the one that is in the bill, talking about what other states processes are for licensing internationally trained physicians and medical graduates and any outcomes data, description of external resources needed to evaluate the education experience and exams of internationally trained physicians and their availability and a proposal including potential qualifications and supervision requirements, summary of additional resources and statutory authority needed and a plan and timeline for implementation and anything else. Directs the Department of Health to consult with other states and various other parties. And so then, as I said, the this would then have the the actual international the pathway to licensure piece take effect 07/01/2028. We'll make things 2027 and then the directive to the Department of Health to go come up with their own proposal, which I get back on this.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Are there any questions about what the bill does? We do have a fiscal note for us January of mister Lamoille. Do you want to hear anything about

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This one? Sure. Not this one is here. Is his name. Okay.

[Nolan Langlois (Joint Fiscal Office)]: See. Other one. Sorry. Sure. I'll stay right here. For the record, Nolan Langlois joined the fiscal office. So to start a program does cost money and while Bill make, you know, puts it in motion to do it, it also there's a study. We don't know what it will cost because there's different programs across the country, which is why they're having to look at them. For instance, I think it was Iowa and Colorado. Colorado, they each hired consultants and one was 150,000 and one was 750,000. Obviously it depends on how many potential people they think are gonna be in the program. Also will need the medical board would also need to hire one to three staff. So, and that's about 150,000 per person. So there are costs associated with it. We don't actually know what the costs will be. This since doesn't start in 2018, you don't need to appropriate any money, but by passing the bill you're sort of committing to a future appropriation of which the amount will be presented to you by through the study.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. We could decide that we could decide it's too expensive to do. You could, you could. Yeah. Okay.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Could decide if you can't afford not to do it.

[Nolan Langlois (Joint Fiscal Office)]: But there's no appropriation required now.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Getting the travel to nurses. Yeah.

[Nolan Langlois (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It wouldn't take too many. The last thing I would also want to mention is the board of medical boards completely funded by fees. It's estimated that there wouldn't be enough

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: people in this program to

[Nolan Langlois (Joint Fiscal Office)]: support it by fees alone. Especially at the beginning. Especially at the beginning, there would likely need to be an appropriation. So

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Just to get it going. Kinda like we do with OPR. Yeah. But if you get it going.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Alright. I'm good on you.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Any other comments, questions?

[Sen. Richard Westman]: I moved the thing that's mandated.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The thing the thing has been moved by the senator from Lamoille.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: We're down to us chickens here now.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We have a farm.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Stick around. Yeah. Nobody Nobody move.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Senator Baruth. Senator Brennan. Yes. Senator Lyons. Senator Norris. Speak about that. He I think he's just making a call. Senator Watson? Yes. Okay. Senator Westman?

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Yep.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Senator Perchlik? Yes. I'll wait a minute for him. Yeah. We can get open just a little bit. How about a reporter? Did the senator Lyons

[Sen. Richard Westman]: vote for this bill? Yes. She did. So we can

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: have a live report. Okay.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: If you aren't here.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I'm here. Do the reporting.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We are making good time. Here's the so now we're gonna move to s 198. Affectionately known as the tobacco bill.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So we have s one ninety eight. I think what's on your web page is the finance report, but that's just basically link to the few instances of amendments. I'm actually gonna show you the economic development committees, strike off amendment.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And What did you say finance did?

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Finance made a few changes to licensing fees.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Just the dollars. Oh, right. They said

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it was a

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: very high fees. They lowered it to lower.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And there's also discussion in the economic development committee about a potential amendment additional amendment as well. Alright. So we are looking at s one nine eight as recommended by economic development. You have to tell me how much detail you want. I'll give you the big picture. I can give you a smaller picture.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Let me, I guess, go section on section, but not not details. K. Because it's not that big of a deal.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, it's a 23. So the first section amends the chapter on tobacco products. Seven BSA chapter 40. It makes some changes in definitions, including the definition of tobacco substitute, which is our statute speak for electronic cigarettes, but also includes other big products and nicotine through this more explicitly nicotine products, including nicotine pouches. This bill moves the responsibility for licensing wholesale tobacco dealers from the tax department to the Department of Liquor and Lottery. So there's a bunch of underlying language that is not necessarily new statutes, but moving to title seven is getting repealed in title 32 and inactive in title seven. So there are several definitions involving wholesale dealers that are taking the title 32. There's some changes in the section on retail licensure, including decoupling the liquor and tobacco licenses and some increases to fees. So these are fees that in the bill as came out of economic development would go from $110 for a licensed tobacco license, a retailer license to $1,000 and for a tobacco substitute endorsement from $50 to a thousand dollars. The finance committee amendment reduces those to be a $150 for a tobacco license and $75 for reimbursement.

[Sen. Robert Norris]: Do you have any data here? Yeah. Okay. Do want me to

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: keep going or do want

[Sen. Richard Westman]: me to pause for minute?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Should I put earning?

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Me just see who assigned it.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I can work with the rule of assignment.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: It's not $1.42?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Not one. I wanna make

[Sen. Richard Westman]: sure people don't replace the reporting.

[Committee Assistant (unnamed)]: And you're getting stuck with a lot today.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Disposal proxies out of the question. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: You're definitely some of the people who do proxies.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: We're gonna it's gonna be one more percent

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: of the line on the second. So Alright. We signed the center line on the

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Yeah. We want the best one that we're doing. She's gonna

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You want me back?

[Sen. Richard Westman]: To report.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah, she voted on the other one. One of my I watch videos, you know.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So this is these are the license fees that the finance amendment is changing so they would not go from 110 to 1,000 for a tobacco retailer license and 50 to 1,000 for tobacco substitute endorsement. The finance proposal would have these changed from 110 to 150 and $50 to 75.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Can you explain the how they were a combined license, the nominally combined license?

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not clearly, no. I can tell you that the statutes require provisions to be incorporated into liquor license forms and and the issuance of a liquors dash tobacco license.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But it's not really one license. Like, you you needed two licenses if you're selling both products.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Hannah Showman's department liquor and lottery. So there is no joint hyphenate liquor tobacco license. That's a quirk of title seven. Thank you for hitting it up. Statute directs the department to assess the fees.

[Hannah Showman (Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: Let me back up. There is a tobacco license and there is a variety of different liquor licenses. When an applicant has a liquor license, either gift card liquor license or an existing liquor license, and they applied for a tobacco license, the department is not directed by statute to assess the fee for that tobacco license. Meaning that the majority of our liquor licensees that hold I'm sorry. Majority of the tobacco licensees also hold the liquor licenses, so they are not currently under statute assessed a $110.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Because they already paid the the alcohol fees.

[Hannah Showman (Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: They paid the liquor Those that have a tobacco substitute endorsement, so which is all beeps, are are are probably the best for the dollar beef regardless of their liquor license.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So they accept that

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: specialty. Separate endorsement. Correct.

[Hannah Showman (Department of Liquor and Lottery)]: Okay. So and so we

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: may wanna spend a little time perhaps in the house looking at whether there are additional cleanup changes that should be made in this section that we can because I think some of it's still still talks about liquor in a way that maybe isn't helpful in this chapter.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But I can put this back up on the screen. So this section also increases the penalty for selling tobacco products, tobacco substitutes, tobacco paraphernalia without a license. Changes some of the terminology to civil penalty, and it increases from not more than $200 to not more than $2,000 for a first offense and not more than $500 to $5,000 for each subsequent events. And then there's some additional, in some cases, of clarifying or or tightening up language. Section 1,002 b is where the licensed wholesaler language is added in title seven against coming out of title 32 and moving into title seven because authority is shifting from Department of Taxes to the Department of Liquor and Lottery. So these are just the provisions from the title 32 language with a couple of either conforming updates or modernizing language involved. It does also increase the penalties for selling, offering for sale, or possessing with intent to sell without a license and increases these to match the amounts in the retailer. So without a retail license statute. No. That would just be that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The fines, what those are deposited where?

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Believe the I don't middle of it. Because I don't remember where the fines for selling at a retailer or a licensed Yes. If I may. Okay.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Go ahead. So Todd DeLoille's assistant attorney general, I believe, currently, they go into the liquor fund for TLO. But I'm now announcing over the JFO.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And I'm gonna maybe you should have asked him and I okay.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I this is not my area of

[Sen. Richard Westman]: forecast their policy. So it's

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I know some yeah.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Don't think These are not I don't believe these are through the judicial bureau. Yeah. But I think Okay. Great. We're getting that answer. We got a team effort going here.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. Don't

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: answer. Thank you. Okay. So we'll look it back to you on that. And then the finance amendment makes some other changes in that piece that we will look at. Section 1,005 is striking the current prohibition, existing prohibition on persons 21 years of age purchasing, possessing, or attempting to purchase tobacco products, tobacco substitutes, or tobacco paraphernalia, and eliminating the $25 penalty in addition to confiscation.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It it limits the penalty or it didn't

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: eliminates the the Prohibition. Explicit provision, and so the statute would be silent. Although you still could not sell. There's penalties for selling to minors, but this would be taking off the penalties for the and the prohibition for minors in possession. The there is discussion in the Senate Economic Development Committee about perhaps an amendment to restore this provision to continue to have a penalty on someone minor who misrepresents their age representing fake ID to purchase these products.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And then same question for these fees. It's the same answer unknown.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: These are yeah. These are assessed in a manner of a traffic violation. So they go through the judicial bureau. I don't know where they go after they are paid to the judicial bureau.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So maybe this is good. Those covered in your fiscal notes, Ted, the lack of those penalty fees, which I'm sure there's not very many on.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So we don't yes. Temerary office, JFO doesn't forecast fines penalties. That unfortunately, this is a bit of a black box because we'd like to assume that, you know, we're not gonna try

[Committee Assistant (unnamed)]: and forecast that behavior.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: But I can do more research into the different bins where things are going to anyone's of interest.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Okay. Thank you.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then in section 1,007, this increases the penalties for selling or furnishing tobacco products, tobacco substitutes or tobacco paraphernalia to person under 21 years of age goes from a civil penalty of not more than $100 to not more than $1,000 for a first offense. And then under existing law, it's not more than $500 for any subsequent offense. This there's a bigger list coming up on the next page around penalty and license suspension or revocation. So under this bill, the minimum license suspensions and penalties would be for a second violation suspension for two consecutive weekdays and a thousand dollar civil penalty. Third violation suspension for fifteen consecutive days and a $2,000 civil penalty. Fourth violation, ninety day suspension and $3,500 civil penalty, and for a fifth violation, revocation of the license, and a $5,000 civil penalty. Section 1,009 is around contraband and seizure. It explicitly adds the tobacco substitutes that have been sold, offered for sale, or possessed in violation of and add some additional prohibition sections. Those are all deemed contraband subject to seizure. And then in the bill, the products must be or items must be destroyed at the expense of the violator and in compliance with the agency of natural resources rules on hazardous waste management. The penalty is explicitly per item in the bill section ten ten is on is on Internet sales. There is a provision on causing all kinds of tobacco products, tobacco substitutes, and tobacco paraphernalia to be ordered or purchased by mail or through a computer, telephone, or other electronic network to be shipped to anyone other than a licensed dealer in this state. This would make that only to a licensed wholesale dealer and strike the provision for direct sale to retail dealers. Would also add some conforming language section ten thirteen is a new provision prohibiting anyone from marketing promoting labeling branding advertising distributing offering for sale or selling a tobacco product or tobacco substitute by imitating a product that is not a tobacco product or tobacco substitute, including several types of things commonly marketed to minors or appealing to minors, foods and brands of foods, school supplies, portable devices, including smartphones, smartwatches, video games, consoles, and inhalers, and a product depict based on or depicting a character, personality, or symbol known to appeal to minors, including a celebrity, comic book characters, and others. Also prohibits marketing, promoting, advertising, selling a product by concealing the nature of the tobacco product or tobacco substitute or by using terms for describing or depicting product that is described in that list of examples of things that conceal the nature. Ten fourteen this would I believe come in this amendment. They're currently in the bill the use of all funds from licensing fees penalties and settlements based on violations of the tobacco laws and all the revenue from licensing fees would go into the tobacco trust fund to be used for tobacco cessation and prevention activities, and that language gets struck. And was that the finance amendment or is that what I'm working on for this committee? I do what I'm working on for this committee. Yes. Okay. After conversations with directorial office and I think some potentially unintended consequences of that language. Section two. Sections two and three are kind of conforming changes recognizing that deposit of all of these funds into the tobacco trust fund. So the amendment we're working on would strike these sections in order to keep the money going where it goes now. Section four is around confidentiality of tax records and allowing the commissioner of taxes to provide tax return and return information to the Department of Liquor and Lottery if it's needed to investigate or potential violations and enforce the tobacco laws. The next several sections are in the tobacco tax statutes. Section five makes some changes to definitions in the tobacco tax statutes largely for conforming purposes either with other laws or with the change from Department of Taxes licensing the wholesalers to Department of Referral Lottery licensing the wholesalers. We've also had some additional language in both type of the chapter in title seven and in this definition about the different ways that people may be consuming nicotine and tobacco products. Products emerge. Sections six and seven are really conforming changes reflecting that transfer of the wholesaler licensure to our liquor and lottery. Section eight redesignates the one remaining section in the chap the tobacco tax chapter on licensed wholesalers that deals with bonding. I've moved that to existing sub chapter because we're getting rid of the rest of the subchapter on licensure and that's what section nine is is repealing the tax department licensure of wholesale dealers again because it is now entitled seven for liquor and lottery. Section 10 creates an investigator position with an appropriations. Those will be of particular interest to this committee. This creates a new permanent classified investigator position in the Department of Liver and Lottery to enforce and and investigate potential violations of Vermont laws relating to online sales and other direct to consumer sales and delivery of alcohol and tobacco products. It gives some certain statutes in particular. It would appropriate $160,000 to the Department of Liquor and Lottery from the Tobacco Litigation Settlement Fund in fiscal year twenty twenty seven to fund the position and expresses legislative intent that the position be funded from the Tobacco Litigation Settlement Fund for fiscal years 2027 and 2028 And that beginning in 2029, funding would be built into the base funding for Department of Labor and Wateries budget with the amount of the salary and benefits offset by an equivalent amount of revenue generated to the department or the office of the attorney general or both by the investigators activities. So basically the assumption that penalty monies would support the position beginning in fiscal year twenty twenty nine. And then saying if the revenue generated by the investigators activities becomes insufficient to cover the cost of the position, then the Department of Referral Lottery must propose eliminating the position as part of its next budget or budget adjustment presentation. We'll have an update to various committees by 03/15/2027 from the department's report and lottery on the status of its implementation of the new investigator position and an annual report on the impact of the investigators activities on compliance with the direct to consumer sales and delivery of alcohol and tobacco product laws. Section 11 directs the Department of Taxes in collaboration with others to look at ways to impose taxes on tobacco substitutes based on the concentration of nicotine they contain. This is something that bill has introduced was going to try to do, but the stamping of those products did not seem necessarily viable at the time. People were testifying on the bill. So it have them look at ways to impose the taxes based on nicotine concentration and evaluate the continued use of tax stamps. Does it make sense to keep using tax stamps as evidence of payment of the excise tax on cigarettes, little cigars, low your own tobacco in the state, and the pros and cons of taking a different approach to certifying tax compliance. Requires the Department of Taxes to provide its findings and recommendations by 01/15/2027 for taxing tobacco substitutes based on nicotine concentration and on the continued use of tax stamps. Finally, the act would take effect on 07/01/2026 except the transfer of authority over wholesale dealer licensure would take effect on until June 2027. The related provision is all taking effect on that date and clarifying that the first of the annual reports on the impact of the investigator position would be due by 12/15/2027. And then it changes the name of the bill because there's no longer actual taxation in bill.

[Sen. Robert Norris]: Okay.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then if you want to see the finance amendment, can show

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: you You are close.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Much much shorter. Fees. There's the fee. Yeah. Changes the fees. It has it requires license fee for the wholesale dealers that matches the license fee for the wholesaler liquor dealers.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And the fiscal that we have has those lower fees. And do you have you done the amendment or do you report to it?

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think I have a I have let me check and see where I am with that one. I think I have what we had talked about, but I I know there has been some also discussion about the investigator position.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Senator Watson, when do you need one?

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Two for two. Okay.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, I have somewhere in here.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: We could

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: ask to talk us a little bit about the fiscal note as it relates to the cost that we might be including in the amendment.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want to see the I have to do that or you want to hear from Ted first and then document it?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Maybe see the amendment and roughly starting with this commitment.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the draft that I have that I started working on yesterday in anticipation would strike out section ten fourteen, that new section ten fourteen in title seven chapter 40, that was the use of funds from licensing fees, penalties, and settlements and directing all of those into the tobacco trust fund. This would strike that section from the bill and also strike out those kind of related sections sections two and three. So keep some money from licensing fees and penalties and settlements going where they currently go rather than

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We're but we don't know where they go. That's what We're keeping it where

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Keeping it wherever it is that it currently

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: because the effort in the bill was to move it so it could fund position, basically.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Right. Well, it was no. The effort in the bill was to move it so that it was all directed to prevention, cessation and prevention.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. And then

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So different different funds both with the word tobacco and then so the tobacco trust fund is where these penalties and fees and settlement monies were going. The tobacco litigation settlement fund is where the money was in the bill is coming from for the investigator position. Two different tobacco related That was section 10. So

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: we probably want to include that in the

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that is the question for the committee is different stakeholders have different goals around the investigative position.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: K. Well, I think can you prepare a version of it that does strike that? Sure.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. And you would strike the whole whole section, is that right, from the investigator? Because it would still cost a $160,000 wherever it came from?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. Just And mister Perchlik, do you wanna talk to us about the impacts on appropriations in your fiscal note. Sure. I'll switch gears.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Joint fiscal office. Yes. I will talk about the two pieces that would be most of interest to you all is allocation of revenues from penalties, settlement arrangements, and licensing fees of the tobacco trust fund. For context on the tobacco trust fund That's section two and three. Section two and three, exactly, is a fund that is at the State Treasurer's Office. It is a trust fund and is wholly allocated to cessation and prevention activities. We'll note that that funds not have a dedicated revenue source. And so the amount of money in the funds,

[Sen. Robert Norris]: when I looked at the end

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: of the '25 was about $28,000 And so the only revenue was getting was from interest income on the funds. And so this would have added, right, the licensing fees, any settlement monies, and penalties amounts given that penalties and settlements are going to various corners of state government. That is the decision for y'all, but it absolutely has potential impacts on the

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: record control. But you did learn even they say, you know, forecast fine. You did have an approximation.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: That is only looking at the licensing revenues that would be deposited in the trust funds. Okay. So yes, that is kind of the floor of an estimate. And yeah, any penalties or settlement amounts would be above that. And yes, currently any fee or licensing revenue would go to the under current law outside of what is proposed in January would go to enterprise funds, right, which the amount that's in the enterprise fund above what they need to for enforcement go to the

[Sen. Richard Westman]: general funders. They're going to pull it

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: in the budget. So that is right. So making that change means that those revenues wouldn't be available in that fund. The second piece is the investigator position. The tobacco litigation settlement fund, taking a look at it, I don't have the exact full of operating statement. But in those two fiscal years, in fiscal year '27 and '28, where it is imagined in those two fiscal years that the settlement funds would support that position. The fund balances in fiscal year twenty seven off the top of my head is in the $5,000,000 range. And then in fiscal year twenty eight, this is before the cost of position are added on the fund balance would be like $260,000 So there's money in the settlement fund theoretically to fund the position. Now, whether the position itself would be self sustaining in fiscal year twenty nine, when it's envisioned that the enforcement activities that position would generate enough penalty revenue supported impossible for us to say. And so, yes, it would be creation of a new position that in fiscal year twenty nine would be part of ELL's budget request and funded through offsetting revenues. Yeah. So it's a decision for y'all that we wanna create that position. But, yes, there is within the settlement fund, there's theoretically enough revenue to carry it in most years.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Can I ask the assistant attorney general? You're is this a proposal came from the AG's office? Yes. And are you funding other positions out of the litigation court, like, directly like this?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: We fund a number of different positions, portions of a number of different positions in our office from litigation file.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Like, as like, bill towards it? Yes. But this would be different?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: So the exact I'm I have to be candid. I'm not certain where this financial language came from in this bill. We were not pushing to shift where the money moved to or from in terms of the licensing fees, etcetera. And that

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But this position says it's funded from Yeah. A litigation fund. But are they do you mean, like, we would have just, like, the full salary we'd be taking out of it?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: That's that's my understanding what the language says. That is not a proposal. We put forward the proposal to create the position. Our view was with a modest increase in licensure costs, you could fund the position to provide greater enforcement.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And your proposal wasn't to take it from the litigation? No. Okay. And do you support taking it through litigation?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: I I would be interested in understanding because the litigation fund, as I understand it, and I will defer to Ted on this, gets the master settlement agreement funds, which are roughly $25,000,000 a year put into it. So I'm interested in sort of what the fund balance looks like year over year because of that. Our draw on it and I wanna be a little careful when we quoted on this, but saying on record to the appropriations committee is roughly a quarter million dollars for our office. And that includes miscellaneous operations plus the individuals who work on

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the Okay. What were you gonna say then?

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The language around the creation of the investigator position is very, very similar to proposal that was put forward in the flavored tobacco ban of a

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: couple of years ago.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: There was a proposal that came out of the House. There was a floor amendment, I believe, when that bill was moving a couple of years ago. And so that was the construct imagined in that proposal. And as I understand folks, you you know, that is it's basically the same with different fiscal years.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And maybe, you know, to to to the litigation fund, do we ever direct that to the general fund from that when it gets right. We do when it gets big enough. That's my understanding.

[Sen. Robert Norris]: Yes. It reversed. Yeah. Or we revert it to others. Okay. It is

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: important to note that it's key that the investigator position is funded out of the settlement fund in fiscal years '27 and '28. Starting in fiscal year twenty nineteen, you have a problem, So the operating statement, the actuals FY '25, the ending cash balance is 13 and a half million, and then the projected for fiscal year twenty six is 8

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: and a half million. Think there'd be enough money in there. That's just an appropriation that we normally wanna make in the budget, not Mhmm. Sales. Mhmm. We would want that in the amendment. And then the fees moving around, I don't know how much we care where they go. I mean, I guess they're sending them to the tobacco trust fund to use for cessation, but now they're being sent somewhere where I assume they're using for administration.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Currently licensing Visa and the litter control fund, which that is not

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: to the general fund. Although some of it is used for your budget.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So it could be that there's less swept or well, there'll be less swept if it's going to Archer Show. It's less money to the general fund. We'd want to include it in it. Questions? Ted, yes. Yeah. Got a couple. I apologize if I just stepped out here. So first question is, so am I to understand I don't know who wants to answer this, that the fee increases are going up to these retailers and whatever else for what reason to support a position at the why are the fees going up?

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The I will not speak to other. Yeah. I think you should ask colleagues in Senate Economic Development and Senate Finance who were had a fulsome discussion about how much the fees should be. I think, yes, there was yeah. And I know other folks are part of this conversation. So, yeah, I would defer to them to speak to why necessarily there were fee increases. Because these

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: are small retailers and whoever else I mean, they're struggling struggling enough as it is.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: So I if I may, the original goal was to have this fund an investigator position. And I recognize it's more of a policy committee. So cut me off anytime. The goal of an investigator position to do is to increase enforcement of online sales because those online sales impact retailers directly because they're purchasing one, they're unlawful if they're going direct to consumer. If they don't go through wholesalers, they're not getting taxed. And so there's not any revenue coming in from that. And three, are an avenue for youth to get product when they're underage.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So the goal is to create

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: an investigative position to cut back on that particular area of the marketplace and increase enforcement there. And the retailers who pay these license fees as we understand some of them, and I won't speak to what the retailers position might be, but we have heard anecdotally that the desire is to have more enforcement online so that retailers are not getting impacted by this. Ultimately, as I understood the conversation next door across the hall in finance, we were pushing for pretty significant fee increase. What I heard finance say is let's have it close to an inflationary adjustment. The fee was last increased in 2015 or '16. It's been about ten years at a rate of inflation. It's roughly 150, dollars 50 or $40 more than it was. Same with the endorsement, $25 more was roughly the rate of inflation. So that's why they landed where they did on that fee increase as I understood it.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So question two, a then b. Jen, I don't know. I missed it. So the only thing that are going up is fees, license, and whatever else is taxation on tobacco products going up also.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Taxation is not going up in this bill. Penalties are going up. Certain licensing fees are going up. That's always going up.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. And then to end it with, I don't know who was in finance or whatever else. Did the retailers give testimony on this bill? And?

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Maggie Lyons on behalf of the

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Montgomery Hill Road Service. We gave testimony in senate economic development opposing increased fees for the reasons that you said. We're tricky environment right now. That was when we were looking at fees going up to a thousand dollars apiece. We have not given testimony since.

[Maggie Lyons (retail industry representative)]: We very much appreciate the reduction. I'm not going to say that we prefer that to no increase. Obviously, we prefer no increase in fees, but this is a version that we could live with versus the 1,001 thousand. Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It doesn't quite push me to the point I wanna be, but I'm gonna thank you

[Sen. Richard Westman]: for that. Yes.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I'm just a little confused by that. The fee, registration or licensing fee went up how much?

[Maggie Lyons (retail industry representative)]: So the initial proposal was to take it from $110 for tobacco and $50 for the endorsement, but each one up to $1,000 That was the initial

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That was the

[Sen. Richard Westman]: initial. Development. That's not what we ended up. Finance.

[Maggie Lyons (retail industry representative)]: So we appreciated the reduction. We're always going to say we prefer not to have an increase in fees for our retailers. However, when we were facing a thousand dollars and $1,000, we were appreciative of the reduction increase.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Did you weigh in on the penalties?

[Maggie Lyons (retail industry representative)]: No, we did not.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No? No.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Or on the reduction of the or the elimination of the because you didn't did you have a position on elimination on the possession charges?

[Maggie Lyons (retail industry representative)]: No. We were we were strictly in there

[Sen. Richard Westman]: to speak about the increase.

[Maggie Lyons (retail industry representative)]: I don't have a position on that.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: website says the Senate Committee

[Committee Assistant (unnamed)]: of Finance report is 511.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: 511. Yes.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for either Ginny or Ted on this? Well, one more. Did anybody weigh in on the increase, substantial increase in fines, penalties?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Was a lot of discussion. So Todd Davis gonna be office. There was a lot of discussion on the fee increases. There was some passing discussion on fines, I think there once the DLL spoke about it a little, but I'm looking at the DLL representative.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Yeah. Sure. And DLL department would oppose increased penalty about the courts. This This

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: is is structured. Structured toward the clerk, not the owner?

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Yeah. There's a number of

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: changes with some of these. And

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: finance.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The clerk and the owner of that.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: How much are those increases on the clerk's

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Sorry? Counselor Kirby said it's not specifically on the clerk. It's just on the entity.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That has been for proposal in the past and other bills are drafted, but it's not. They're not in this.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So what's the increase to the penalty? Sorry.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's so that the are you talking about sales to underage or sales without a license?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Sale I'm I'm talking about sales to underage at a convenience store, grocery store, whatever.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it goes from a $100 to a thousand dollars for a first offense, and then current law is not more than $500 for subsequent with certain license suspensions and it this adds financial penalties between a $101,000 for a second violation and $5,000 for a fifth violation and escalating license suspension.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And one more? That that 100 to 1,000 is on the clerk?

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's so it's a person that sells or furnishes the person is defined in title one applying the whole Vermont Statute Sanitator as an individual or an entity corporation or just etcetera. So so it sort of has someone that sells and whether that is imposed by the it's I I believe it's assessed to the establishment, not the individual clerk. And so when it is assessed to the establishment, they they determine it is, how it is paid.

[Sen. Robert Norris]: Yep. Thanks.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Do you have that amendment that you could bring Yes, up on the

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it's me. I have the address, but I'm not going to show it to you in its current form.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We will need to vote on it as a draft. Yeah. I guess so. Okay. So which council's drafting an amendment that will strike the appropriations of position and sections that divert the money away from or would

[Sen. Richard Westman]: have an impact on the

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: general. Alright. So

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: here is the amendment. So this is the amendment that has this committee recommending that the economic development report as amended by finance be further amended first in seven days a chapter 40 by striking out section 10.4 the use of funds from licensing fees penalties and settlements in its entirety and striking out sections two and three that relate to that direction of those funds into the tobacco trust fund and putting deleted in. Then we have striking out section 10, the investigator position in its entirety and putting in again deleted. And then in the effective dates by the last item on the list was when the first report on the investigator position was due. So I'm striking that out and making the conforming changes needed earlier. So that's two and three, not three and four.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: In the fiscal note, it's section one and three proposed to direct revenues and penalties.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, but section two was doing a conforming carve out from the AG special complex or complex litigation special fund and saying except settlements that relate to violations of the tobacco laws go into the tobacco test fund.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay, so we are in the first section we're striking back.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The first section you're striking out ten fourteen that's saying settlement monies, penalties, fees go into the tobacco trust fund. Section two, we're no longer carving out the settled tobacco settlements that would otherwise go into complex litigation special fund. In section three. We're no longer saying that tobacco trust fund comprises monies from those settlements penalties.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Any questions about this amendment? Without any further questions about the bill or the amendment, I will entertain a motion to pass the bill of this amendment.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: I think we better vote on it anymore. Okay.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So there were no edits,

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: so we're good to go. Okay.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: I'm going to be in. The bill.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. So

[Sen. Robert Norris]: we might we might wanna Yeah. Just see where people are before we vote because Right. I think it's three. Given who we have in

[Sen. Richard Westman]: the room.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So yeah. Do you wanna do a straw vote on the Well, what we do in judiciary

[Sen. Robert Norris]: is we we talk about how we might

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: vote. Okay.

[Sen. Robert Norris]: I would I would be happy to vote for this pulling out the appropriations, but not sure how does this feel.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: I will vote for the amendment taking out the appropriations. The fee the fine increases for the clerks working made this something that

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It's not the clerks. Well It it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. To me I I'm sorry. I'm speaking for you, but, I mean, yeah, I'm speaking for myself here. So you wouldn't vote for the bill?

[Sen. Robert Norris]: I wouldn't. I had a bad committee. You did not have a committee?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: No. I'd vote for the amendment to take the appropriations out if we're doing two votes. Right. But if the second vote doesn't have the votes, doesn't really matter if we amend it or not. That is true. So it's

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: been Norris. I'm a no.

[Sen. Robert Norris]: I'm I'm I vote for

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the appropriation amendment, but I'm

[Sen. Robert Norris]: not gonna support the bill. So we're in an unusual position then because it needs to leave the committee today. We don't have senator Lyons or senator Watson. Right. So I can see two ways to proceed. One one is that we cajole one of the no votes in getting it to the floor where you could then vote no. If we can't do that, then it's gonna have to miss crossover and get an exemption or by the wolves committee.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. So we'll vote either today or we'll vote on if they're not the bill's not gonna pass, we'll vote till Tuesday to vote it out. And then it will have to be

[Sen. Robert Norris]: the grossly expression. Would it So I guess the question would be, would any of the three of you be willing to vote yes on the bill to get it to the floor with the understanding that you

[Sen. Richard Westman]: would then vote no? So where we could send the bill out without recommendation?

[Sen. Robert Norris]: Sure. It would take a yes vote from one of the three of you.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I'm thinking that. Yes with no recommendation. Yes with no recommendation.

[Sen. Robert Norris]: Okay. In that case, I would move the amendment and move it favorably. Well, now

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: you're good. So the bill would be moved without recommendation, not favorable.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: With the amendment, right?

[Sen. Robert Norris]: I'm just moving the amendment right now. And I'll make another motion.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We can I think we could do it as one? Okay. With this understanding, motion will be to amend the bill with this amendment. And then move the bill without recommendation. So that was the motion made by You did?

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: You already hired? I've got one.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, one must vote

[Sen. Richard Westman]: on the amendment. Then Do you wanna have

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: two votes? He's saying have I'd say we'd only need one motion. That's amending the bill and voting to move the bill. No recommendation. No recommendation. Fine. Clear? No. Okay. Totally. Well, we want the clerk to be clear. That's Well, I know how to write it down.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Yeah. Like But if the vote

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: if if one of us were to vote, say one of us were to vote yes, how does that work? We're voting yes? We're voting yes to move the bill without recommendation. It's not amended. It's just if

[Sen. Richard Westman]: it was two motions, we'd be unanimous on the amendment.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: They don't want the bill to leave here. I would vote with the bill without recommendation. Because the bill will leave here one way

[Sen. Robert Norris]: or the other is just do we have a bunch of rigmarole with the rules committee to So

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the vote on the amendment would looks like it'd be five-zero then on the bill would be three-two but I'm just saying let's vote on the So you're willing to just go on the bill for the amendment in it. So we're voting on the bill as amended but with a no recommendation to the floor. Yeah.

[Sen. Robert Norris]: And then it's just a distinction as how you make the report and what what appears in the journal.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It'll say no recom yeah. Community appropriations. No recommendation as amended by finance as Although we we could report that it was five minutes

[Sen. Robert Norris]: committee and a straw poll indicated that there would have been majority support. But, anyway, it

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: won't matter, don't think. Yeah. Okay. I think we all understand what we're voting on here. So Senator Baruth? Yes. Senator Brennan? No. Senator Lyons? Absolutely. Senator Norris? No. Senator Watson? Senator Westman? Yes. Senator Perchlik? Yes. Okay. And I'm willing to report it. 567. Okay. I will explain all Do you need to explain on this what we just did? Because I didn't write anything down other than the vote. Trust me. I didn't write your name. Well, I would cross out favorably because that's how it's the default is favorably. So cross out favorably for that recommendation.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: I I just to be clear on this, Laura. Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Things are always clear. Also here.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Under other there.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. You're

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: supposed to write me.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. That's twice in one session. No recommendation. Exactly. You don't have wait for. Yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: With that, we succeeded. Yeah. Two fourteen. Oh, we got 214 that we got today. What is 214? 214 is another bill. Yeah. What does it do? I need to go home. I know. Well

[Sen. Richard Westman]: I need to go home. Uh-huh.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: 214, we were sent today, and I'm forgetting them.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Don't know what's happening. It's happening to the provision of pre kindergarten education in geographically isolated school districts.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Are you here for that, Katie?

[Katie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm filling in for Beth. So I can give you a very high level overview, but not much more, but you have Ezra who can answer all the fiscal questions.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: My understanding is you probably heard about the bill, but you can explain it. Allows families in the Northeast Kingdom to send their preschoolers to the school in New Hampshire. There's like 14 of them.

[Katie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. There's not very many students who would impact in

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Does it say anybody or does it name the towns that are allowed?

[Katie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It says anyone in the district and it specifies that it has to be in a school within 25 miles of the Vermont border.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So there's only one Vermont district that it's applied? Yeah. Okay. And then I think the fiscal impact was like $30,000.

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The director, mister Holden joined fiscal office. I'm estimating up to $60,000 being the fiscal impact in fiscal year twenty twenty eight. That's assuming that 14 students gain access in the NEK Choice School District to go across the border to New Hampshire. However, just like to remind everyone that pre k or universal pre k, the parent has to opt into that and they have to find a spot for their child. So if only seven parents, guardians choose to do this, then the impact would not be the full 60,000. And that's based on the universal pre k tuition rate inflating forward from fiscal year twenty seven to '28 by 3%.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But the parents could start using this in '27 or be the fiscal year twenty seven?

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So they can, however, since the education choice has already voted out their school budget, they would have to absorb that in their existing budget. And then when they

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: start preparing

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: their budget for fiscal year twenty eight

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: and onward, that's where you

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: would see perhaps an increase in the budget in front of these students. And since that would be impacting the education fund, it's de minimis, but also all that SQL has to be spending more on your education fund, you need to lower your property yield and or increase your own set of tax rate to

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: come to that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: $60,000, but that's pretty limited. It's got 2 point whatever billion dollar. And a school could open up. Right now, the main reason for this is because there wasn't a preschool in the Choice District. Is that right? Or not enough preschool?

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So what understand is that there are certain towns in the NEK Choice District, and this would probably be better answered by someone from the district, but they are in towns that are too far away. There are pre k kids currently in that district who are receiving services in Vermont. This would just allow folks right on the New Hampshire border to find a public New Hampshire program. Okay. And if they would like.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Is this just the district that's came in?

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: This would only apply to the Northeast Kingdom School Choice School District. Do you

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: know what towns are in that district? Not off the top of my head.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Well, came in and West Stewart's stown share a high school, and the bridge is like the bridge out here. You can hardly tell that you went from one state to the other. Correct.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. It's probably those towns. And then if my understanding Is that good? Talking to others.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: No, that's that's Canaan up in the corner and Canaan the North Winds here.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But we already did. So pick my suggestion. Sorry. Go ahead.

[Committee Assistant (unnamed)]: That's the adverse favorable or no recommendation. If you do it as adverse or no recommendation, by making the recommendation, you're saying they should pass with these changes. So my recommendation is you do it with no recommendation and whoever wants to be, we'll put it on the calendar by individual sponsors from this

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: committee. Is that what we did, no recommendation? We did no recommendation. On the amendment, I was yeah.

[Sen. Robert Norris]: You can't have an amendment. The amendment was unanimous.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: You can't do an amendment unless you have a unless you're favorable. Oh, yeah. You can't do a no recommendation on the bill as amended. So we should have split them, like you said. Could we do Even if we split them, it would somebody If we had passed the amendment, the amendment's part of the bill, we couldn't then do no recommendation on bill we amended.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Correct. But we could

[Sen. Robert Norris]: if we didn't amend it?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So you can you cause in that case, here's a bill, you put on the floor. Here's a bill, you think it's a piece of crud, adverse, you have no recommendation, you're washing your hands.

[Committee Assistant (unnamed)]: Do an amendment, you're saying, we're going to tell you how to make it better and then we have

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: to support it. And you to

[Committee Assistant (unnamed)]: do an amendment, you've got

[Sen. Robert Norris]: to kind of say that you're voting favorable after. Okay, then let's vote it out without recommendation and then amend on the floor.

[Committee Assistant (unnamed)]: You can have all five of you, seven of you, two of you, whoever I mean,

[Sen. Richard Westman]: at that point, we'll have think that all of us Or we can't

[Sen. Robert Norris]: vote on the amendment. No, what I'm saying is, can you vote on as you did?

[Sen. Richard Westman]: I'll vote no recommendation on the bill. Yeah. I yes. And somebody who can give

[Committee Assistant (unnamed)]: me an amendment, whatever it is, one of you sign it as the lead sponsor.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Or the floor.

[Committee Assistant (unnamed)]: And carry all of you on the calendar as being the sponsors. Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. So

[Sen. Richard Westman]: this is I can do that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. So what I'm what I'm doing here, we already have the vote with no no recommendation and I'm doing a vote on the amendment. I don't care what the amendment. We

[Sen. Richard Westman]: have to resign on to the amendment.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But you wouldn't want to vote for the we have to revoke because you would change your vote. So you have to keep your vote because otherwise the bill won't. He said he's gonna vote no on the floor, but he'll vote it to go Yeah, let's scratch that other vote.

[Sen. Robert Norris]: And we'll just vote the bill. No rec No recommendation. That's three two. Okay. So we And then we'll worry about the amendment.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: The amendment That's okay. You can offer it by yourself.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. So we don't need

[Sen. Richard Westman]: to All of us would So we know. Would agree to the amendment. We don't need to do that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I didn't think so. Yeah.

[Sen. Robert Norris]: We don't need

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: to do that. Should've listened to the thought. Okay. And I

[Committee Assistant (unnamed)]: need your signature on what you thought was the report. So I can put it in the calendar for notice on Tuesday.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Well, it'll be a different it won't be that what I thought was the report was gonna be the amendment, but it won't be that.

[Committee Assistant (unnamed)]: It'll just be You're you're gonna basically stand up, whoever the reporter is, stand up and say, we took testimony. We have no recommendation on a three two vote, and you can sit down.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So we just But you could

[Sen. Robert Norris]: also explain why we had

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: no Yep.

[Sen. Robert Norris]: Which is that two members of the committee favoring it who were absent on cross Are

[Sen. Richard Westman]: you going to them when So we don't know

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: how they favor Yeah. Don't know. They're gonna You That's a little When you say we need so what would we sign? Just the finance report?

[Committee Assistant (unnamed)]: I want you to sign what you were gonna do as an amendment with your name individually because you're the sponsor on the calendar.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So I'm already giving you the amendment. It's gonna be on

[Committee Assistant (unnamed)]: for Tuesday on the notice.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: No, I just need the amendment.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: Oh, you only print

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the amendment?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: No. You got it? Yeah. I think They already take it. The one that's already sent.

[Unidentified Legislative Counsel/Witness (primary for this ID)]: You're talking about January, and

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you're talking about the amendment that Jen just wrote. I haven't printed that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Oh, we haven't printed it yet. Yeah.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You want me to put it under your name?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yes. Yes. Now. Right? So that's completely changed. If you just want, because we'll take it. No scratching. If you got something heavy. Okay. Whatever works out for you. You're Exciting.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: You're playing too many video games. So

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: You're in. So we can even play the other ones. I know. Video games and TV cameras picking up. I wonder who

[Sen. Richard Westman]: sent me an envelope for

[Committee Assistant (unnamed)]: the There's a kit with a page right in front of it.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: I'm sure it was.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So why was he done or was he done with that? I think we're done. Well, we don't have to revoke for the No, this is two fourteen. So the amendment I will make and And officer Harvey is rewriting it to come from me. You guys can And then the report on the

[Committee Assistant (unnamed)]: three two, who's the reporter of that?

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Fine. Can I have a report? Just can you just sign something, say three two, and I'll bring it upstairs and we'll put a little Well, why don't

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: we put that on the amendment? No. No. No.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you have the ROA?

[Committee Assistant (unnamed)]: I'll just take the ROA with the signature. I just need something in writing. Thank you, sir. Okay, let's move out. I

[Sen. Richard Westman]: do need 214 favorably. So

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: don't take directions from the ranking member when the chair is presented. I'm just a little rant. So we have a motion from Senator Westman to move two fourteen favor. Yes. Senator Baruth? Yes. Senator Brennan? Yes. Senator Lyons? Senator Norris? Yes. Senator Watson? Senator Westman? Yep. Senator Perchlik?

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Yes. Cool.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can we read now? Don't know.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That was nice. With no further