Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: All right, so good, we're back live, Senate and Health and Welfare, and we have with us Craig Fellner, welcome, Director of Government Affairs from the Infant Nutrition Council of America. Craig, why don't you introduce yourself for the record and let us know a little bit about the Infant Nutrition Council of America and then offer your testimony.

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Yes. Thank you so much, chairwoman. I appreciate it. I submitted my name is Craig Felder. As stated, I'm the director of government affairs for the Infant Nutrition Council of America. We're the trade association for the leading manufacturers of infant formula domestically here in The United States. I submitted my testimony yesterday morning. Written testimony a little bit more lengthy. So hopefully, folks have been able to see that and and been able to go over that. It offers a lot of commentary on just the issue of heavy metals and what we do to test for it in our industry and put some of the bill in context as well. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Infant formula is the most highly regulated food in The US food supply. Again, infant formula is the most highly regulated food in the food supply. Our industry already tests for heavy metals as part of our long standing commitment to provide safe, high quality infant formula products. And as our results show, we test under the strictest of international standards which are set by the European Union. I thought I would just take a couple minutes and provide a little bit of background and but I hopefully will be most helpful on the bill with house consideration. I testified a couple times on the house side. Originally, as you may or may not know, the bill, exempted infant formula, and that had been the case, in the, four other states that have adopted baby food programs to test and report. California, Virginia, Illinois, and Maryland. Those are the four states that currently have baby food programs. And baby food, just as a reminder too, is regulated or not regulated, but regulated like any other food in the in the grocery store Okay. Unlike infant formula, which is regulated more like a medicine. So when we were considering it in in the house side, I testified a couple times in a draft. They had put it they had taken the infant formula exemption out. And then during the markup, just before the crossover date, they put the exemption back in. And then right before they adjourned, they just decided to do a triggering amendment, as you all know, which was which was in the the bill that that passed on that on the house floor. I wanted to just take also a couple minutes. I wanna leave time for questions, but I wanted to I I did watch the walk through that y'all had, and I jotted down a couple questions that I heard from the walk through. And I thought I would just sort of gen generally, you know, talk about them and then take questions from y'all as well. It was asked, does the European Union have anything like testing and reporting? And my answer to that is no. There are international standards, the strictest, set by European Union. The jurisdictions in New Zealand and Australia have heavy metal limits for infant formula just for lead. Canada has one just, I think, either for lead or arsenic. But European Union is the one that has all four, but there are no testing and reporting regimes at all in any jurisdictions around the world. And about two thirds of the world use the European Union standard for infant formula. Somebody asked, what is the bill trying to do that the federal regulations don't do? And I would say there are currently regulations by the FDA that tell us we have to, as infant formula manufacturers, again separate from baby food, which is is not under any of these regulations, Once our ingredients come into our plants, and our biggest ingredient obviously is dairy, we are mandated to start testing those ingredients for heavy metals when they enter our facilities. And so right away, we are working under FDA guidance and regulations to curb heavy metals. We test along the way. We test we test final products before they go out. Nothing moves to distribution that is not under the European Union standard. And just real quick before I move to the next question, I think it almost goes without saying, but I feel like I have to say it, and I say it a lot. Obviously, heavy metals are omnipresent, and they're in the water. They're in the air. They're in the animals. There are trace amounts, obviously, in infant formula. There are trace amounts in breast milk. For infant formula, though, we have had these controls on us for years, and we test under European Union standards. So that obviously differs from other food items that are in the in the grocery store. Okay. Next question that I jotted down was what problem were we trying to solve? And I thought this was a great question. As you could probably see if you saw my written testimony, there is no problem with with heavy metals in infant formula. And I would just add that there is a program within the US FDA called Closer to Zero. It's an initiative set by the previous administration that the current administration has adopted and is moving forward to implementation. They're setting standards for baby food and children's food, and then they will get to infant formula very soon. In fact, today, the FDA released a study that is a precursor to setting limits at the federal level. So it was stated actually in 2025, March 2025 from the FDA that there are trace amounts of heavy metals in infant formula, and that there is no health concern with that because they know of the controls that we undertake. Just let me just go over one more that I heard. Are the current federal regulations requirements allowing higher levels of cadmium to be out in the market? And the answer obviously is no. There's federal regulations on ingredient testing that we use right when the ingredients enter our plants, and we test for our finished product under EU standards, which are the strictest in the world. And then the last one, somebody commented that you can make a choice about how much cadmium you want to expose your infant to. And and I would just say to this one, this is an interesting one. And the and the picture I'm trying to paint here in the in sort of the crux of some of our comments are, if a mom or dad is in a store, and they're holding maybe a pouch of baby food or a little jar of baby food, and they're looking at the label. And maybe they're getting anxious about it, or maybe they've hit a QR code that's already in place in a state, you know, for baby food. You know, they can put that jar of baby food down. They have a 150 other choices that they can go grab for their baby or for their older infant or for their younger toddler. They can go buy fruit. They can go buy other items in the grocery store. Putting a label on infant formula, which is the sole source of nutrition for infants other than breast milk, we feel like is gonna make a parent anxious. Infantforma is safe. Infantforma is under the thumb of the FDA. They control not only our ingredients that go into our products, because they wanna make sure that that the growth takes place similar to what would take place with breast milk. But what we don't want to do is we don't want to scare a mom or dad who's looking at a product of infant formula, and we don't want them to put that down because they don't have other choices. We don't want them to go Google homemade recipes. We don't want them to grab almond milk, which we know doesn't have the ingredients to make an infant thrive that infant formula does because we're mandated to put certain ingredients in to make sure that happens. And and most notably, it it likely has a lot more heavy metals in it than infant formula does. And so I hope that's helpful. You know, I just wanted to go over a couple things that I heard in the conversations talking about as y'all had talked about this bill a little more and provide a little history on the house side. I would love to answer questions if y'all have them with the time I have left, but thank you so much for allowing me to testify. I appreciate it.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Well, thank you very much. It's very helpful, and so I'll see we're we're actually at the time we had devoted to this at this point, but committee do you have questions?

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Can I say one more thing Madam Chairwoman, just real quick?

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Yeah, please go ahead.

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Also, you know, with respect to kind of what's going on, even since y'all were given the bill since the house passed it, California is deliberating on this issue as well. And as I as I noted, today, FDA is putting out a study, which is a precursor for their action. So I don't know. I think that just counsels perhaps working on it over the summer, and then we can come back, and we could we could put put some pen to paper and write something that y'all could pass, you know, in the next session. But it would give California a little bit more time to mature and certainly the federal government to set their standards on the federal level. So thank you so much. I appreciate it. Sorry to sorry to butt in.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Thank you, I mean the debate or the presentation from folks in committee has been the trigger should be for baby formula. It doesn't seem that the baby food has been that much of a concern, so it's important that we've heard your testimony. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Questions committee before we move on. Just super quick. Thank you very much for

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: your testimony. Comment just being that the FDA sometimes sets a pretty low bar in terms of,

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: know, contaminants and

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: additives and so on and so forth. I don't necessarily always want to adhere to the FDA guidance. I'm looking at the regulations, the global landscape, which I really appreciate you sharing with us. I mean, does look like the EU has a lot of really great, you know, specific parts per million, you know, guidance in there in good formula, and the USDA, the USDA, USDA doesn't have any limits established at all. That is disturbing, would say. Even Canada at least has a limit on lead. So I just wanted to share my anxiety with that landscape.

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Can I give a quick observation on that? Sure. Okay. Yeah. So the reason so the Biden administration did propose this program that I initiated or initially talked to you about, which is called closer to zero. It is what it sounds like. It's the effort to get heavy metals in baby food and in infant formula closer to zero because you're always gonna have trace amounts. And so the Biden administration introduced their intention to do this. They didn't do anything on it. The current administration put the proposal out today, and they're gonna they're gonna do something about it. We have actually asked them to just adopt the EU standards because they're strict, and and and we want moms and dads to feel comfortable with the product they're giving to their babies. And so we would be totally comfortable with adopting the EU standards. But to answer the question of really why they haven't done it yet over spanning administrations is because they know that infant formula is a federally regulated product. They know what we do to curb for heavy metals right inside the gate of our facilities. We're testing the ingredients. They know that we test under European Union standards, and they they are comfortable with that, but but we have asked them to set a standard in The United States, and we would welcome that, and I think they will very soon. Well, thank you for the question. I appreciate it.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Last question, and then we need to move on. Go ahead. So

[Sen. John Morley III (Member)]: far, it sounds like California is doing something or looking into this to some degree. Are there any other states moving forward with infant formula language?

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Yes. The only other state right now that's contemplating it or has a bill is New York. I would say California's deliberations are pretty mature. They're ongoing. New York does have a bill. And so, you know, Maryland took a look at it in their session that ended a couple weeks ago and decided to just stick with infant or excuse me, just to stick with baby food right now. And the other states are Illinois and Virginia who just have baby food. So my concern

[Sen. John Morley III (Member)]: is probably gonna be the impacts to Vermonters for our moms and infants if we do pass this. I just wanna make sure it's protected. I don't know if there's additional information out there that would be able to help us make a decision on this, but

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Well, as we heard before, if the trigger is California, that's a large market and so you know that we can talk about that when we get back to final discussion. Important point. Craig, thank you very much for being here this morning and bringing all the information that you have. Appreciate it, obviously.

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Yeah. Thank thank you

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: so We

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: get it, so you understand.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: It's a tough place for all of us to be right now.

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Yes, ma'am. Yep. I understand. Well, thank you, and I'm available if if, you know, you need me as a resource going forward. Thanks so much. Appreciate it.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Alright. Thank you. Okay. Committee, we're going to move along to 09:30. And thank you, Bill and Lawson, for bringing that testimony in. So, Katie, we are in the midst of going through nine thirty eight with an eye view, identifying decision point and actually doing some markup. We'll just hold a second. Think it's everybody in there. And I will say also what page are we on? 19? 19. Yep. Okay. 19, section twenty ten. Yeah, went through it. I know. And I did have a terrific meeting with the Vermont State Housing Authority and the agency Human Services on the Rental Assistance Bridge Program, and they have brought some language in that I think we should be looking at when we get to that section. I think, Katie, did you also receive it? I did have them send it off to you as well. When we get to there, we'll take a minute to look at that as well as what's in the gel. I was here Friday, but

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: I did watch the video. It was exciting.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's kind of exciting feeling. It is.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: So we are looking at

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: where you all went. Right. Oh, you've got it. Got it. You've got it.

[Brendan Allen, Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Human Services]: Patience. Patience.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Patience. Patience. Patience. Okay, so Katie, why don't you give us a heads up about where we've been briefly? Sure. And then where we are and where we're headed.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel. So we started our markup last week. You opted to not see a new draft with the changes, but to keep working through the rest of the draft. So, I will hang on to the changes that you've made. You've made several changes. Probably the most noteworthy is in the levels, moving permanent supportive housing out of the levels and into a service that is sort of across the board for, that individuals could receive while they were in any level. So there's

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: a new section that does that. Okay.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: 02/2010 is the household responsibilities. So we have this language again, within the funds appropriated for this purpose, the household shall qualify for services under the program if the household is physically present and intends to reside in Vermont as evidenced by active participation in housing, employment, or other AHS recognized plan. Agrees to a coordinated entry assessment that prioritizes household, the household for permanent housing unless explicitly exempt under this chapter. For example, the low barrier shelter doesn't have as much assessment per entry. Subdivision three engages with a lead case management entity such as a Department of AHS or community partner to develop a housing plan and participate in employment, treatment, or other activities as appropriate unless explicitly exceptional case management requirements under this chapter by federal law and abide by program rules and refrains from misconduct.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Okay, so let's just stop there and think about this. So, this requires certain things, a child's goal applying to be in this continuum. So there's no requirement at the lower level for shelters.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The high barrier shelter, there are some requirements for case management. I don't know about coordinated entry specifically,

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: but the low barrier shelter would have that requirement. Right. And then once they begin the coordinated entry process, then at some point they're going to have to agree to following through with a treatment plan and participation in employment, treatment, or other activities. Okay, that means they have to attend meetings if there are meetings for substance misuse?

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think it probably differ on a case by case basis, depending on what the family's needs are and what the ability to participate in different treatment or meetings. Understood, okay.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Of the concerns that was expressed is that you're mandating that people have to go through treatment. This doesn't actually mandate going through treatment but that they participate in some kind of employment or treatment or other activities. It doesn't mean they have to take it seriously. It says participation. Oh, we'll think about that one. I I do think that the concerns that have been raised are something that we have to maybe think about a little bit, so we'll put that as a normal decision point, but come back to it. Okay.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay, so I think we made it through A. That brings us to subsection B. The office, meaning O E O, or a community partner shall provide clear written notice to all applicants regarding penalties for fraud at the time of the application. The office or community partner shall not impose a penalty upon a household for a good faith immaterial error that was corrected upon notice within a reasonable time period. Subdivision three, a household that knowingly provides false, misleading, or incomplete information regarding residency, disability status, household composition, or other eligibility criteria shall be subject to termination of services within thirty days after receiving written notice from the department or community partner. Subdivision four, pending the outcome of a relevant human services board hearing. The office may refer cases of suspected fraud to the office of the attorney general or state's attorney for investigation of prosecution under applicable laws. A household may be terminated from the program for repeatedly refusing suitable placements following documented suitability assessments and reasonable accommodations.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Sorry?

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Top of page 21. A member or members of an eligible household may be subject to immediate termination of services as necessary for the safety of others if the member or members are engaged in criminal activity or misconduct that is not related to a disability or to victimization related to abuse, sexual assault, or stalking. And then there is a definition of misconduct, which means documented behaviors that materially endanger the safety of others, involve the intentional destruction of property,

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: or constitute illegal activity. So the question is the definition, whether the definition is comprehensive enough or specific enough. We see this question a lot. We probably should think about it. Next

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: is the prioritization section. This specifies that the office, either directly or through a community partner, shall prioritize services within the funds appropriated for this purpose to eligible households who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless and have a member who is 65 years and older, has a disability, is a minor child, is pregnant, is experiencing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or other dangerous or life threatening conditions, or is under court ordered eviction or constructive eviction due to circumstances over which the household has no control.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Then Okay, and this does, so the word disability in there, it's important for us. Know that we've had flagged disability early on, but I just wanted to share the more I think about it, the more that definition that's there is probably appropriate for use within the context of this bill in the homeless continuum. And so maybe what I started thinking about is maybe that back there in the definition we need simply to say for purposes of this program or something like that. So then it holds for disability in this section. So the definition only applies to this chapter. That's all we need to know. Okay. Yeah, okay. That's good.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay, in subsection B, proof of the eligible households disability shall be verified by either a healthcare provider licensed or certified and practicing in Vermont, a determination or certification from a state or federally recognized agency or program that provides services to individuals with disabilities, or self attestation by the eligible household subject to verification by the state or community partner within thirty days when other documentation is not reasonably available at the time of the application. In subdivision two, the presence of an eligible household member's disability shall be verified by the office or community partner during the household's initial application process and shall be redetermined annually if the household is still receiving services. An eligible household with a member who has a lifelong disability, such as an intellectual or developmental disability, shall not be required to have the disability reconfirmed. Subsection C, the office and community partners are to comply with the ADA in section five zero four of the Rehabilitation Act, the purpose of providing reasonable modifications, effective communication, and accessible placements. Program rules and case management requirements shall be reasonably modified, including the use of plain language as necessary to avoid discrimination against eligible households with a member who has a disability. Okay, that brings us to twenty-two twelve, the time limits. So this section has already changed based on decisions that you've made. So first for level one, any temporary housing that is not provided in the form of temporary rental assistance through the program's prevention and diversion services shall not exceed thirty days per rolling twelve month period. Line two is with shelters. The office in collaboration with shelter providers shall establish a maximum length of stay in highly structured shelters and low barrier shelters in rule or in shelter standards. Level three, the department, sorry, level three or specialized shelters. The department in collaboration with relevant AHS departments shall establish the maximum length of stay in specialized shelters either in rule or in shelter standards. Level four, this level of work for permanent supportive housing doesn't exist anymore. Level five is hotels or motels. For the period between April 1 and November 30 of each year, eligible households may receive housing at hotels and motels with supportive services for not more than seventy days per rolling twelve month period. And between the cold weather months of December 1 and March 31 of each year, households may receive continual services in cold weather use hotels and motels, which shall not be applied towards the time limit established in A. So the time between December 1 and March 31, those days don't count towards the seventy days for the remainder of the fiscal year. In subsection B, the department can grant extensions to the time limits established in subsection A pursuant to criteria adopted in rule, including for an eligible household actively awaiting a placement in housing, treatment, other services, for medical necessity, lack of reasonable alternative placements for a member of the eligible household with a disability, and due to imminent risk of health or safety of one or more of the eligible household members.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Questions, committee, as we're going along? Okay. But I think we'll keep going through and then I'm gonna make a recommendation at the end.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: 200213 is case management services. Each eligible household shall be assigned a lead case manager.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I have a question there. So it says a lead case manager, is it important to say it's a lead case manager? As opposed to just a case Case management, I know. The distinction being, if you have a lead case manager and that person goes away, do you just have case management? Is it flexible? Is it not? I don't know. I think that I'm finding most concerning is is it's a one way construct. But one of the problems you've had is we don't have enough case managers. And so you said, we're setting this all up, but we don't have the shelters, the staffing, or anything else. And people could be thrown out for being not nice, which if we do it, they aren't. I'm not sure how we're improved the new present system. I wanna hear from the agency that they have staffing because we've heard this from, was it five years ago? It's after COVID, all hands on deck, we are ready, we are going to, We've got this under control. There was nothing red or under control, and we've struggled up from there. So at some point, I'd like Definitely a good point, Senator, and there is time in here. Remember also it takes a couple years for all of us to get fit up. However, your comment is well taken. This has been going on for a long time. So it's not in any way dismissive of the work that the agency is doing. They're very dependent on the same conditions that everybody else is dependent on. Inflation and workforce, etcetera, for years. But if we're going to do this, we need to be serious about it and make it happen. So I don't wanna be back here for this. Maybe for some fine tuning improvements, but, you know, point well taken. So, anyway, well, I just I just saw the word leave and I was looking through earlier as well, And I know others have pointed that out. So maybe you wanna think about whether it's just an case management. Both. Yeah. George was a lot of dead, you know? Yeah. We've learned about that child dying. Yes. Yeah. Was that we fired or gave early retirement to all the middle management senior social workers who probably give you a need. Case managers. Case managers. And we had all these movies, and you can have a master's in music and become a social worker for the state of Vermont. And we didn't have the people to train you. And that's why staffing is

[Sen. John Morley III (Member)]: So take your right center. So on page 45 as an example, it says a household may request a specific case benefit.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Oh gosh.

[Sen. John Morley III (Member)]: Don't think Just so you don't.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't think that's I mean, we're we're

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: almost Katie's gonna get us there. That's another little flag I was gonna put up. Everybody will be asking for the same person.

[Craig Felder, Director of Government Affairs, Infant Nutrition Council of America]: Yeah.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: That would be fun. If we have one good one, can send it. Yeah. Okay.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Alright. Okay. I'll keep going. Sure. Well, how would you like to proceed on lead? Do you want that, word on line 19 in, or have you not made a decision on that yet? No.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I don't know. Let's just put case management in there and see how that goes. Assigned a case manager? Yeah. Okay. It's like case management or case manager. Okay. So

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: each eligible household shall be assigned a case manager except for specifically exempted for certain services, which may be from any AHS department or community partner. Case management services provided pursuant to this chapter shall be informed by the acuity level of the eligible household and include individualized supports that connect an eligible household public assistance, health care, employment, permanent housing and other services. A household may request a specific case manager or a change in case manager.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Is there anyone who wants to leave that sentence in? I know you have your hand up, but I'm not going around the room yet. So it's just for the committee. I'm not thrilled with that sentence. I don't think that people should be requesting a specific case manager. They can complain and they can ask, but I don't think it should be statutory. And there may be some mitigating circumstances against doing that. Staffing. But a request isn't necessarily should never be granted. I know that, but then if you request and you're requesting it turns out, you may have an appeal to the Human Services Board. I don't know what that means from a statutory perspective. We can come back to this in a couple years when we see how it works. See, it seems like a nice idea to give people some agency, but I understand. Well, I know it gives people agency. I I agree with that, but it's a big issue. Let's let's take it out for now, and then we'll see what happens if we get through the bill. The other human cry out in the real world. Section 2,214

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: is the NEETH Assessment. OEO or the community partners shall provide advice and consultation to the Department of Housing and Community Development in a completion of a needs assessment that identifies gaps in services for households that are homeless in the state and includes recommendations to ensure the provision of equitable services throughout the state. It's my understanding that this is an existing needs assessment requirement that Housing and Community Development is already asked to do. Twenty two fifteenth, notice appeals and rights to a fair hearing. OEO or a community partner shall provide written notice to any applicant or household whose participation in the program is denied, reduced, suspended, or terminated. The notice shall include the specific factual and legal basis for OEO or the community partner's decision, the effective date of the action, which in the case of termination, reduction or suspension of services shall not be sooner than thirty days after the date of the written notice, and the household's preferred method of communication.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Okay. This is all related to the Human Services Board?

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We haven't gone to the Human Services Board yet. This is the donation that the office, the OEO, or the service partner provides if a person is terminated. This is sort of the explanation of why a termination or reduction occurred.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Understood. Okay. Keep it up with me.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So also in this notice is a statement of the right to request a fair hearing pursuant to this section and clear instructions and plain language on the process and deadlines for filing an appeal.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: So that's all part of the notice. So is this different from the current notice for making appeals to the board?

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I would have to check that statute, but the timing could be different, and I don't know what the notice requirement is off the top of my head. I'd have to double check.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I'll simply say when we get to the whole Human Services Board piece, for me, looking at Human Services Board process and decision making. It's a whole bill. It's a whole structure. We've been through this in this committee and I know how long it takes and the difficulty of making decisions around it. So I'm less enthusiastic, me personally, having been through this, knowing what's there about including all of the Human Services Board stuff in the bill. So, and to the extent to which this is part of that, I mean, it's something we'll have to understand. So just to say that, put it out there, this is a huge red flag for me, and I think it should be for all of us, because it takes time to dive into all of the word process and decision making. I know there's a backup. I know that people are concerned. The other side of that is that as this is implemented maybe some of that will be resolved. So anyway, just I'll leave it there for now.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm thinking for your question a little bit as I'm sitting here. Your question was what are the notice requirements right now? So the Human Services Board hears appeals from multiple programs. Yes. And I would think that the the notice requirements aren't as specific to the board as the program themselves. So here, in a case where we we don't have a current program, there probably aren't specific notice requirements about termination from housing and a length of time for an appeal. So this is probably the only place that this Okay. Appears.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: So let's leave that one right there. Okay. Okay. Good.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'll move on to subsection B. An application for or recipient sorry, an applicant for or a recipient of assistance pursuant to this chapter may file a request for a fair hearing with the Human Services Board pursuant to three BSA three thirty ninety one when an applicant for assistance under the program is denied in whole or part, the household benefits are terminated, reduced, or suspended, or the household believes that benefits have not been provided and afforded to applicable rules or policies.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: When does this section of the bill go into

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: effect? This goes into effect July. Okay. Subsection three, an applicant or household shall file a request for a fair hearing within sixty days after the date of the written notice pursuant to subsection A. In subsection D, if the household files a request for a fair hearing within fourteen days after receiving notice, the office or community partner providing notice shall continue to provide services under the program without interruption until the decision is issued by the Human Services Board unless so this distinction there is you can file the applicant the request for a fair hearing up to sixty days. But if you do it within fourteen days, you can continue to receive services while your hearing is pending. Unless, top of page 27, the household voluntarily waives continued services or the household or household members continued receipt of services posing the risk of safety to others. So this is the Human Services Board. Yep. There's more. Mhmm. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with due process standards, including the right to present evidence, cross examine witnesses, and be presented represented by counsel or another authorized representative. The Human Services Board shall issue a written decision that sets forth findings of fact, conclusions of law, the basis for its decision and the process for appealing the decision to the Vermont Supreme Court. The Human Services Board issue if it issues 20 substantially identical decisions brought by applicants or recipients of this program, the department and program partners shall adopt the board's interpretation as part of its administration of the program and the department shall revise the program rules accordingly. So, okay. So for all of this, the important piece is that there's a right to appeal to the

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Human Services Board. That's the important piece. The rest of it is procedural that is maybe not duplicative, but different from what currently happens with the board. And so in order for us to go through all of this, it's what I was indicating before, it's a whole new way of looking at board process. So my suggestion is that we keep statements in there about allowing for a fair hearing and appeal and maybe there's some timing in here we should include. To have a full blown discussion at this point is interesting. So let's hold the thought and let's you're hearing my thoughts on this. That's all I'm saying, Senator. Did the agency department asked us not to do that because the board was already overwhelmed with some of the earliest testimony we got, and they were very concerned about the board. I think they said they were fourteen years. I mean, they were figuring or something, and that the board was already backed up, and to put this all on it, we grind everything to a halt. And I would have to sort this one out, but for now, it is a big deal. Yeah. It's a big deal. Okay. You're hearing results. Okay. So noted.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. I'll keep moving. Twenty two seventeen is rulemaking. The department shall adopt rules under the APA for implementation of the program, addressing at a minimum requirements for community providers participating in the program, standards for highly structured low barrier and specialized shelters, documentation requirements for household eligibility, including disability, required elements for supportive services, including case management, the creation of a brief standardized initial assessment form that may be completed by hand, electronically, or by telephone, a process for issuing timely written approval or denial notifications to applicants, a process for issuing advanced notice to households when the household is being terminated from the program, applicant and household appeal procedures, time limits for program participation, including procedures for extensions, expectations for the office's oversight and quality monitoring, and other subjects as deemed necessary. So that would be part of the rulemaking process. So,

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: it is a pretty wide open rulemaking process. I think committee is what we might want to think about is how to fine tune it a little bit. So they're writing, for example, rules about eligibility including disability. We've already got a very concrete, I think it's a pretty concrete definition in the beginning. So I'm trying to sort out what they would say differently from maybe it's procedurally had a document. We don't want it to be onerous for folks. So think about the level of the labs for the rule and how you can think it's wide open. You haven't been on the LCLUD for a long time. I know that this would open up a lot. So I think I have to think about this one.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Then the top of page 28, subdivision three, where you wanna say documentation processes for household eligibility instead of requirements.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Which one are you on, Katie?

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You had read, so top of page, oh, we're on different pages. So I'm in twenty two sixteen, subdivision three was the one that you referenced.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I did, it was just an example. Okay. As an example, that's all. But no change at this But I don't know what changes we can make to be somewhat more prescriptive on the rule making process, that's all. Okay, I will wait to hear more. Yeah, it's true, I think, required elements for supportive services, case attachment. And then brief standardized initial assessment. They have been too fussy because I think we need to trust the folks to know what they're doing. On the other hand, we wanna make sure that we don't have something that leaves people stranded. Anyway, go through this section a little bit with an eye to rule making. That's all I'm gonna do.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay, next is 20 two-seventeen, reporting. Annually as part of the department's budget presentation, the department shall provide a status report addressing each level of the continuum. Minimally, the status report shall address the number of households served at each level of the continuum, the average length of participation for households within each level of the continuum, and the rate at which the household successfully transitioned to permanent housing, the number of households diverted from entering shelters or hotel motel placements through prevention and diversion services, the utilization of hotels and motels, including the average nightly number of rooms used, the average and median length of stay, and extent to which hotel and motel usage has decreased relative to the prior fiscal year. In Subdivision 5, housing stability outcomes, including rates of return to homelessness within six and twelve months following exit from the program. An assessment of regional capacity and access to services, including identification of geographic areas with unmet needs or disproportionate utilization of emergency housing resources, total expenditures by a continuum level and funding source, including state, federal, and other funds, and an analysis of cost efficiency across hotel and motels. Oh, I'm sorry. Across housing models. In Subdivision 8, any operational barriers to implementation of the continuum along with recommendations for administrative or legislative action. So, that's part of the annual presentation as part of the budget presentation. It's a lot. I mean, it's good if we can get all of that. I'm sort of looking

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: at Miranda Gray and whether or not there's capacity to do all of this right now. We'll have to sort that one out or whether it's a matter of understanding what exactly can be done and then setting, establishing a goal for these to happen. Thinking in two ways, one, this is stuff we really want, but right now can we get it? And then can we establish this as a goal and then say come back and tell us when and how? Well, also, is

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: this taking the place of a different report or

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: is this on top of all the other reports that they're doing? Good question.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, right now they're doing a monthly report. But I'm trying to think there are other reporting requirements. I'm trying to remember if there's a similar

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: So, this is a little flag piece. Anyway, we wanna know capacity. We don't want this to overwhelm the work of what needs There to

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: is still a monthly report.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: How the data is collected, how it can be collected, what is substantial for this. We don't want to get in the way of having this data. Okay, number one. Not saying we don't want it, and I'm not saying that the agency shouldn't provide it, but it's whether or not the capacity is there right now or whether we work toward that that patient. What about every two years is important here? How is she feeling about a year? She got about yeah. I had a little problem. Okay.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The okay. Keep going. Subsection b is annually also part of the department's budget presentation. The department is to set goals for increased housing capacity, including permanent supportive housing, permanent affordable housing, and shelter beds. The department is to provide data pertaining to the increased shelter capacity and the extent to which shelter capacity meets the needs of eligible households experiencing homelessness each year. And then C is the monthly report that I was thinking of.

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: So

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: this is asking for what is a substantially similar report to the report that is being produced now on a monthly basis that would be posted on the department's website, broken down by the levels in the continuum.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: It seems like before we even start, we should have the report on shelter capacity versus need and work from there rather than do all this and then report on shelter capacity. Because that's what's missing is the foundation. Mhmm. We have x number of homeless people Mhmm. For x reasons Mhmm. And we have x amount of capacity.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Section five is the merger of the two continuums of care. In order to promote effectiveness, effective use of resources and continuity of care, OEO is to work in collaboration with the two continuums and US HUD to establish a single continuum of care in this state by October 1. Prior to this, on January 2028, OEO is to submit a written report to the various policy committees summarizing efforts to establish a single continuum of care pursuant to this section, recognizing that this isn't something that unilaterally can happen at the state level. Section six. Section six is, a section that would be added to the chapter that we have just looked at. It takes effect at a later date. Human services talked about this section taking effect after there was one continuum of care, which is why it's set for October. This specifies that any grant or other agreement executed by AHS or its departments shall require a community partner as appropriate to participate in the local housing coalition or other group established to assist eligible households who are homeless. Utilize the coordinated entry assessment for eligible households who homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Utilize the appropriate planning process and options for an eligible household transitioning into permanent housing, including for eligible households with an individual who has an intellectual or developmental disability, older Vermonter, or individuals transitioning from a correctional facility or hospital, and measure performance outcomes including diversion success time to housing and housing retention. So that would be part of grants with community partners as of October. Section 32. No, page 32, section seven. Sorry. Got it. I understand.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I asked a quick question. I don't know why I

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: didn't ask this before, but what do you mean by measured

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: performance outcomes? That, is that required? Measure performance.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That there would be a requirement that entities under agreement to provide services as community partners would measure their performance. That would obviously be.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I guess. That's right. Yeah. I imagine that's specificity here that isn't in the rule makings process, but it is in the grants.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I wonder if there

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: It would be appropriate

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: to have language in the rulemaking that specifies what measures, what performance measures. There's some language about

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: quality improvement. Yeah, I

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: think so. But maybe that's, oh yeah, quality monitoring. But maybe that's where you say something more specifically about specifying the types of performance, potential outcomes. Okay. I will add that.

[Brendan Allen, Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Human Services]: Okay. There

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: there might be some others on the little piece too. Okay. I am thinking that we wanna Good, we're almost to the rental assistance and we have folks in the room who would have a proposal, so let's see what we can do.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Section seven is your transition language. So, this specifies that the department and community partners do not have capacity to fully implement the continuum on July when it takes effect. The department, through the office and community partners, shall implement the program to the fullest extent of their ability in fiscal year twenty seven, while developing capacity to fully implement the program in fiscal year twenty eight.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Is that in any way redundant with what we have previously? No.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think the alternative to this language would be to break apart the chapter that we walked through with some pieces taking effect at different times. Yes. So what this is allowing to happen is allowing the program to all be enacted as one coherent chapter at one time. And this gives permission that in fiscal year twenty seven, not all of the pieces are necessarily going to be in place, but in '28, they would be. This is our rule making time frame. So, pending adoption of permanent rules, DCF is to adopt and maintain emergency rules which shall be deemed to meet the standard for emergency rulemaking. Emergency rules required by this section shall take effect on 07/01/2026, and at a minimum address the topics listed in '22, '16 that we went through. And then in subsection B, unless extended by LCAR, the department shall on or before 10/01/2027 adopt permanent rules for the program. So, you will have emergency rules continually in place until by 10/01/2027, there would be the permanent rules in place. That gives a more than 12, what is that, almost a fifteen-fifteen months, that's usually. Give about a fifteen month window for 12 rule making. Yeah. And I've heard nine to twelve months is sort of the window for a rule. Okay. Well, it's a little bit longer. Sometimes it's

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: longer, but we'll do that.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. There is language that you could get an extension from LCAR.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Implementation status report. So by February 15 of this coming year, DCF and OEO, oh, just OEO, I'm sorry, shall present a progress report to the policy committees on the implementation of the continuum. The office's presentation shall include an initial draft of the department's permanent rules and any recommendations for legislative action. Section 10 is standing up a program for households experiencing domestic and sexual violence that is separate and apart from the continuum that was created. Mhmm. I'll move over that. And that brings you to the bridge assistance program, which I know you received alternative language on.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: We did, and it would be, I think, helpful to look at that language, and then we have John O'Farrell in the room and others who can maybe speak to that. So why don't you put the dental assistance piece up, and the way it was presented to me of what is that there's agreement between the two groups, the housing authority as well as the agency of human services. So let's look at that. So that's what it says. And then this is the first time that we've seen it. It's also probably the first time that folks in the room have seen it. That's okay. It's a good thing. And we'll see what the effect is. Why don't we look at that?

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So you'd be able to make a teensy, I think. Okay. Oh. How does that look? Oh, that's good. Okay. So you'd be retaining subsection A as it came over from human services, that the program is established within the state housing authority for the purpose of linking households who require rental assistance to permanent housing when the household does not otherwise have access to HUD rental assistance. The program shall be accessible to eligible clients served by each AHS department. Then some changes to subsection B instead of the program shall not be available to a household per, shall be available for not more than twenty four months, etcetera. Language that the program shall not provide the full amount of the household's rental payment and shall not be a permanent voucher. The duration of the program system shall be temporary and determined based on the specific needs of the, oh, would say eligible household. Let me just make it up for myself. Household. Eligible household. As established by AHS and the Vermont State Housing Authority pursuant to subsection D. Program payments shall be made directly to the Vermont State Housing Authority to a household landlord. And C, some changes. Instead of referencing the whole program, let's say that the program shall be accessible to eligible households served by each of the AHS's departments, the priority given to those exiting Exiting homelessness, isn't that right?

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Entering permanent home.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Fifth priority given to those. Yes, that makes sense. That's right.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: That does. Yeah, does. Okay.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The state housing authority and relevant departments of AHS shall jointly work to develop a plan that incorporates existing rental assistance for Vermonters exiting homelessness, funded by the agency and its departments to the program established in this section. And establish eligibility criteria and prioritization, sorry, any prioritization that may be necessary for the use of funds appropriated for this program and the appropriate length of bridge assistance.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Assistance under the program. Is this posted on our page? Yeah, it goes under It's under Brendan. Under Brendan, State Housing Authority, ABGES, Apple Facility. A

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: new section in EHS shall collaborate with the housing authority to develop a framework for establishing a unified housing voucher program that consolidates voucher assistance currently provided through the agency's departments. In developing that framework, the agency and housing authority shall analyze the fiscal implications and consolidating existing voucher programs into a unified program, including projected costs, potential efficiencies, and impacts on funding sources. Assess projected impact to the total number of individuals served and on distinct populations, including but not limited to, individuals exiting homelessness, individuals facing eviction, individuals with mental health disorders, individuals with disabilities, and any other populations currently served by department administered voucher programs. Subdivision three, identify administrative, operational, and statutory changes required to implement the unified program and propose options and recommendations for structure, governance, and AOPA review by the programs. AHS and the housing authority shall report their findings and recommendations to the relevant legislative committees by December 15 of this coming year.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: So, just need to put the commission. Yeah. I

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: can figure out the mechanics to make this work. Okay,

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I'm gonna ask the presenters of this amendment to speak to it. I don't know who wants to do that, Jenna or Kathleen Sure.

[Kathleen Burke, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: For the record, my name is Kathleen Burke. I'm the executive director of

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Jenna's not here. I'm not Jenna. She's not up there. Okay. That's okay. Okay, Kathleen. Sorry.

[Kathleen Burke, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: I'm Kathleen Burke. I'm the Executive Director of the Vermont State Housing Authority, the committee members. Yes, the Vermont State Housing Authority has worked collaboratively with the Agency of Human Services, Brendan Atwood and his team, to present the legislation that is being considered today as part of the subsection 11. It deviates from the original, from the bill that came out of House Human Services in that it eliminates time limits from the legislation and directs the Vermont State Housing Authority and the Agency of Human Services to work together to develop appropriate time limits programmatically through policy as opposed to legislation. It's important also to call out that this is a bridge mental assistance program. And so a component of this that will allow the program to be successful over time is that Vermont State Housing Authority in the role of administering this bridge program will also position folks that are receiving state funded rental assistance on their waiting list for a federal housing choice voucher. And so there's a plan to transition families from state funded assistance to a federally funded housing voucher.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Six months ago, three months ago, and then the emergency board Mhmm. Was looking at a federal pullback and the loss of section h vouchers. And I'm wondering, it's no sign that Washington is letting out. I believe the president was quoted as saying housing vouchers or subsidies for landlords or welfare for landlords, I think might have been his term. So, We're basing this on a solid foundation. We've gotta transition people to something that may not be there. We've had recurring vouchers, right?

[Kathleen Burke, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: We have. We've been shopping vouchers. To to that, I have a couple of comments. One is I think because of the uncertainty around federal assistance coming to the state of Vermont, this program is more important than ever if we are gonna continue to stay the the state voucher program, if we're gonna continue to transition families out of homelessness into permanent housing. It's absolutely critical. As it relates to, the federal housing policy, specifically as it relates to Housing and Urban Development and the programs funded by Housing and Urban Development, we are going through a very uncertain time. It's a rocky road. I've been in the business administering the voucher program for the state housing authority for over thirty five years. I can tell you there have been there have been waves over time. We went through sequestration many years ago where there was a significant pullback in federal resources. Right? We built that back. And so I do anticipate that, you know, for the next couple of years, things are gonna continue to be tight. Things are gonna continue to be uncertain. However, our agency has what we call a move up preference. What that preference is, is it positions families who are receiving state funded rental assistance on the top of our waiting list for our House of Choice Badge. They're giving preference over other families. And so should this language be adopted and passed, then families participating in BRAP will also be elevated to the top of the waiting list. There may continue to be a wait, but I believe I'm an optimist by heart. This too shall change. You know? We will be issuing vouchers again to our waiting list. And when that happens, this will be the cohort of folks that will be offered that assistance.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Uncertainty. Yeah. Thank you for your comments and your optimism. We all need that optimism. Understood.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Brendan, do you have anything to add?

[Brendan Allen, Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Human Services]: No, Brendan Allen, Policy Director for the Agency of Human Services. I had to go Kathleen's comments. We're excited to work on this for us because it covers the entire agency or at least many other departments. We want to make sure that we're doing our due diligence to plan this out right. So that's kind of the intention behind taking the time here. But otherwise, we'll have to agree with Kathleen's comments. We look forward to working with them on this. Okay.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: All right, so is, why don't we, we'll put this in and we'll consider it and I'm sure we'll give comments from folks. But having the state program move ahead as a bridge program, see where we go with it. And thank you for bringing it to us. Absolutely. I know it's working. I don't if you see how far we can get. We probably can't. Let's put a hold on just getting to the last part of the bill. We have payment rate structure and shelter services. And one of the things that we have to think about in here is how we're paying for it all and how the money is distributed. So we'll just consider this would be a good place to take a stop. And when we come back we'll be on page 30 from the bottom right? Then we'll be moving forward again. And so the question about where does the money go, we've got like 21.8 or $21,000,000, I don't know it's right there. We have some money to look at and how it's put in place and I have some questions about maybe what's not in here and then how we can include some things that are not here. So thank you committee for all this good work and thank you all for being in the room. I know you all want to comment right away, I get that. If it were me, I'd be wiggling in my seat. Understood. So we'll keep working on it and allow for the committee to make some decisions and then we'll have that conversation around the room as we do that coming up pretty soon. So we're going to move on to other things right now. Well, thank you Kathleen. Sorry, I thought Hope I'm not offended. We're good.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We're good.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: We're doing, we're gonna do the two bills that are on the calendar. On your calendar? Oh, we have those. We have the calendar bills upstairs. Senate calendar. One is Michelle's and one is yours. What are the numbers? What's 1? 157.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Recovery Residences. Oh, Recovery. I'm ready to go with that one.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Okay, let's do it because I'd like to record it on the floor. Hold on a sec here. Sure. Oh, before we dive into that one, oh, I want John here before I do that. So we're gonna go to the bills that are up on the calendar, return to us from the House first. Then we're gonna go back to the calendar agenda that we have in front of us, which starts out with fivethirty six, sixsixty, eightsixteen, and we'll see how far we got because we haven't happened yet. Okay, then tomorrow we'll come back to it. So

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I have pulled up on my screen S157. This is not the as passed bill. I will make it bigger. But this is the final committee report of Human Services, and the reason I'm showing you this version is because one, there are no changes on the floor, and I have this PDF that retains the highlighting of their changes, so I thought that this is maybe the easiest way to see what has been done. Like I do in this committee, I sometimes use two colors of highlighting. That is not meaningful for our purposes. Just know that if it's highlighted, there was a change from human services. So, one change they made in the definition section was there was a term substance abuser, and the committee decided to change that to individuals with substance use disorder. It appeared a few different times, So, you'll see that that change has been made throughout, instead of substance abusers, individuals with substance use disorder. In the definition of recovery residents, instead of tenants, they used residents. So, it means a shared living resident supporting residents recovering from substance use disorder, and provide residents with peer support, assistance accessing support services, and other community resources related to substance use disorder. So, those are our changes in the definition section. You'll see that this keeps repeating individuals with substance use disorder except Section substance two, no changes to the work that you did. Section three, this was the section that had the recovery residents having, if they wanted to immediately exit or transfer a residents, of their recovery residents, there was a process that had to be followed, including different types of notice. So, this has been changed by the house. So one of the elements is that, that they would, that the individual would indicate that by signing a residential agreement,

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: acknowledges that the recovered residence may cause the resident to be immediately exited or transferred to alternative housing for behaving in a manner that impacts the health or safety of other individuals residing, working, or volunteering in the recovery

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: recovery residence, such as the resident violating the recovery residence of substance use policy, repeatedly refusing to engage in services or programming, being charged with a criminal offense, engaging in theft, materially interfering with recovery residents, or engaging in acts of violence that threaten the health or safety of other residents, recovery residents, staff, or volunteers. So, sort of the discussion around this change on lines 13 through 15 was that everything comes back to safety, that the reason this is in place is for safety, so they sort of led off with the reason for immediate exit or transfer would be related to a behavior that impacts safety, and then everything else is appearing, that had been in the Senate side, is appearing as an example of that impact on health and safety.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Does that make sense? Yeah, it does. There

[Sen. John Morley III (Member)]: was a,

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: maybe if I'm remembering wrong, but if they were gonna be exited there had to

[Brendan Allen, Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Human Services]: be like a plan in place.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This doesn't, that there would have to be like a transitional spot, yeah, that hasn't changed, you'll see that. Oh, well, there is a tiny change, but it's still here. So, this subdivision C mirrors the language we just looked at. So, they have to sign that they acknowledge that this type of behavior could result in exiting or transferring, and then to be exited or transferred, the individual would have to have behaved in that manner. So this is tracking the language we just looked at. Here is the language that you're asking about in subsection D. The recovery residence has provided or arranged for, instead of a stabilization bed, a re engagement bed, or other alternative temporary housing. In Subdivision E, the recovery residence has provided written or electronic notice to the resident containing the date and rationale for the temporary removal or transfer, and options for returning to the recovery residence. So that's a new condition. Another new condition or added language, the recovery residents have established a grievance process approved by VTAR or another certifying organization approved by the department. So there would be an agreement process in place for the immediate exit or transfer. And then there's this new subdivision three at the top of page six, notwithstanding 4,460, which is that a landlord can't go into a tenant's rental property without sufficient notice. So notwithstanding that, a recovery residence employee may enter the recovery residence at reasonable times as necessary to carry out functions related to the operation of the recovery residence. Subdivision four. This is a change to the definition of recovery residence. Unlike the definition in the Senate had tracked the definition in section one, However, here, services made a decision that this exit and transfer policy would only apply to certified recovery residences. So, what this language does, is it says that as we're using recovery residents in this section, it means the definition in section one, plus they're certified. So that is the change there. No changes in Subdivision 4. Subdivision 5, sorry, section five is the rule making section. So the only change here is that at a minimum, the rule shall set forth data collection standards and reporting requirements for certified recovery residences, including data elements and frequency, exit and transfer data. They wanted that collected because if you remember, we have a report now that's being sunset, so this would continue to collect that piece of the data. And that's it. So those are your house changes. Committee, any questions about those? Any red flags for you on it?

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Well, can you just, I'm trying to find the statute here. Notwithstanding the

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: 40 four-sixty? Yeah. They can go and do a ticket editor. Books. Yeah.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Do you want me to pull up the statute?

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I think we're I mean, that. Okay. So that's the So it's just a twenty four hour notice. Okay. That's generally to anchor. Have to tell you. I know. I can't wait to finish.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: How does the notice have to

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: be delivered? Remind me to tell you how professional tennis players are regulated with the use of disallowed drugs. Oh, yeah. Easy. We could do. Okay. This

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: is what we're not standing. A landlord may enter the dwelling unit with the tenant's consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. A landlord may also enter the dwelling unit for the following purposes between the hours of 9AM and 9PM on not less than forty eight hours notice. When necessary, inspect a premises to make necessary agreed repairs, alterations, or improvements, supply agreed services, or to exhibit the dwelling unit's perspective or actual purchasers, more to be, more, more, more. It's been

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: a long, Lori. Finger ties.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Look good for you. Gorgeous. Thank you. I'm

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: sorry.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Tenants, workers, or contractors. And then in subsection c, a landlord may only enter a dwelling unit without consent or notice when the landlord had a reasonable belief that there is imminent danger to the person or the property. So that's what's being not withstood in that section and allowing an employee to go in to manage functions related to the operation of the recovery residence. Meg, go ahead and comment. Like post action circles. This is actually really what the providers feel is technical cleanup language because how a recovery residence operates, there there are actual offices in the residence. So this is actually just saying that the employees of a residence can enter their office space and, you know, as they need to to carry out the functions of the residence. They're co located.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Got it. Okay. I

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: would say that this is broader than office spaces Yeah. Definitely broader, but

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: also, I think, critical given Yeah. What the residence represents. You have a stash of something you're supposed to be to have, avoiding. This isn't a standard rental. No. This is a recovery facility, and you are then endangering your recovery if you have already gone off, and you were endangering by putting temptation in the way of everybody. So they So they can go into the individual rooms. Mhmm. Mhmm. I didn't got when I was on economic development, change the view of my lord tenant. Right. He's our Yeah. Standard rental. Right. So, committee, are we any, I guess, straw poll, are you okay with what the House is proposing at this point? Because I would be happy to report it up on the floor. Yeah, I like a lot with it. I do too. I like something changing. Yeah. I'm a little worried about privacy issues. Well, that one is always gonna that's gonna continue to be Yeah. Straw hole. Good with it? Okay. That's all I need to know. And I'll get a if I can get a printout of the colored copy, that'll help me. Oh, I

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: will send it to you right now.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: And then, so Katie, while you're here, I know the other bill that's up there is Michelle's, and Michelle sent us all the information, and I read through it all last night. I'm hoping that you also read through it. So Tisk. Tisk. Tisk. Tisk. It's on our web page. Yeah. And we'll hold that one then until everyone has had a chance to look at it. I'm gonna eat, but I just want to dress up.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Where can you tell us What is it?

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: To where we're going. What number is

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: it, Melissa? 239. 239. Under? Michelle Childs. Oh, there it is. Sent us three documents. Did you

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: want us to look at

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: the house, which it closed a little bit better than me? Yes, and so what we'll do is we're gonna move right over to five thirty six, which is the heavy metals and baby And food we've heard a lot of testimony. The biggest, we just heard from the baby formula piece, there is a trigger in the bill. Katie, remind us what the current trigger is.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, it's if either California or two other states pass legislation with regard to infant formula that meet, the stand, that are substantially similar to what Vermont is doing with regard to three factors. Sorry. Just switched documents here.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I'll pull it up so we

[Brendan Allen, Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Human Services]: can work at it together. Yes.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I'm doing the initial, so I need to find this. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I thought it was. Okay. So

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: here can you see this? Yes. Okay. So here are effective dates. Section two is the infant formula. So this would take effect upon the attorney general's written confirmation to the speaker and the pro tem, which is to be posted on General Assembly's website that either California or two other states have enacted legislation with their requirements substantially comparable to the requirements of this act regarding all of the following. First, the prohibition on the sale and distribution of infant formula that contains a toxic heavy metal exceeding US FDA limits. The required testing of infant formula sold or distributed in the state for toxic heavy metals, and the labeling of infant formula and the provision of information about toxic heavy metals and infant formula. So basically this is saying all the elements that you're putting in place in section two have to be substantially similar to the legislation that passes in another state. So if another state were to do testing but not labeling, the three elements would have been met.

[Brendan Allen, Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Human Services]: It

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: would have to also require labeling.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: All three of these elements, yep. Prohibition on sale and distribution for exceeding FDA limits, testing, labeling.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Okay, the question is do we want to change that trigger and we did hear from folks in the baby formula industry. But we also know that other large states besides California are also looking at the best of Do

[Sen. John Morley III (Member)]: you wanna look at states or population?

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: It's states. I know. Because that represents populations.

[Sen. John Morley III (Member)]: Well, bet every state has to have population.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I know. Could be a smaller state.

[Sen. John Morley III (Member)]: Right.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: No question about it. But right now the states that are looking at it are the larger states like New York, Virginia, Illinois, Maryland. Those are the ones that have been looking at this and working on it. So that's what we were told. Anyway, just, committee. I'm okay with it. You're okay with it? I'm okay with it. I'm not okay with the

[Sen. John Morley III (Member)]: infant part. I'm okay with the rest of it.

[Brendan Allen, Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Human Services]: Okay. Fine. Even the formative? I know.

[Sen. John Morley III (Member)]: It sounded like a formative. Just went into the last second. Although

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: there's nothing, there's no regulation for any level of any of these chemicals through the FDA. So we are really out of sync with the world on this 2021. And I know everyone says, oh well it's in the water, they make it with filters on that water. You can make accommodations for that. Right now there isn't any. I understand what we're hearing from the formula industry. We also know that there aren't a lot out there. How many, Bill, how many baby formula manufacturers are there? Is it six?

[Brendan Allen, Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Human Services]: I don't know the total number. There's at least three or four large generic ones.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Yes, so they're big ones. Yes, they're doing well in the marketing world. So

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: Do you entertain the last

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: shoot? Yep. Good. Okay.

[Brendan Allen, Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Human Services]: Sorry.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: What's your last comment?

[Brendan Allen, Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Human Services]: Absent any other changes, there are at least three timing issues that the house language does not address that would need to be addressed. First, it's not entirely clear whether the Vermont law would be effective on the passage in the other states or on the effective date in the other states, number one. Number two, the underlying bill has a provision to allow the sell through of existing inventory, which is not addressed for infant formula here. And three, any label that would be required by this legislation would have to be approved by the FDA, and that could be a lengthy process. There's no accommodation via bill to allow for how long that will take. You could end up in a situation where Vermont requires a label that the FDA has not

[Sen. John Morley III (Member)]: yet approved. It could obviously be a problem.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Well, they would have to have it approved. So, but

[Brendan Allen, Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Human Services]: regardless, so that's not addressed in the House language, apart from all the other issues.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Katie, your thoughts on that?

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, with regard to the first one, I was just looking at it. It says two other states haven't acted, so that seems pretty clear that they have enacted it, and it doesn't refer to when it takes effect. It refers to an act when. So I think that was there. I wasn't sure what the pass through date meant.

[Brendan Allen, Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Human Services]: So the underlying language, for example, allows the sale of baby food that's inventory as of the time of the of the effectiveness. There's no corresponding language for Formula. Formula. And it's also the issue of, you know, it's not like these can be set up for Vermont overnight.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Oh, no. We got that.

[Sen. John Morley III (Member)]: No. It is not

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: just some of the incident. Yeah. Well, it's gonna take some time to put filters on your water. Yeah. It's the one. And you don't wanna end up with scarving babies because there is Well, the attorney general will be reporting about any The big Yeah. But I'm not sure how the attorney general knows if there's a shortage of baby report. Okay. Me either.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This is the language that's being referred to, lines eight through 10, that the provisions of this subsection shall not restrict the continued sale of inventory and stock before 01/01/2027. So this takes effect, So this allows for baby food to, the continued sale of baby food that was in stock before 01/01/2027. So arguably the infant formula would take effect at a later date. And so there wouldn't be language, assuming that's at a later date, there wouldn't be language in the bill that said, you can use your old stock up. Six months, this is a six

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: month provision, right? Can we add that in?

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, not really. So the bill takes effect, the section one takes effect July. So this is saying anything that you had in stock before the passage could be used.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: It's a year. Who has in stock? The manufacturer's warehouse or the local workshop? Local retail. Retailer. Okay. So the question is what's the timing that we put in once the revision is passed? So what's the timing here? Rather than pass, just say The date. The effective of

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: this is July 1. No, that's 01/01/2027. So that's when this takes effect. And this is saying if you had baby food in stock, you can continue to sell it after that date. The problem is formula. And that's what they're saying.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: That's what we're trying to put in place. What's the timing for formula?

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So you there isn't. It would just be when it takes effect that there isn't a a ability to sell back supply. Okay. So right now, if this bill passes, what's the timing for baby food? For baby food? So all of the provisions take effect 01/01/2027. If a retailer has a supply of baby food prior to that date in stock, they could continue to sell it after that date.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: So what statement can we make that allows for the sale of the baby formula once this is inactive?

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think you wanna do something in the contingency that that sort of says the same thing, except that infant formula in stock, I don't know what you wanna say, six months prior to that date can continue to be sold after this actually takes effect.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Or baby formula in stock prior to that date. Infant formula. Infant. Prior to that date, why why put a time on?

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, that's a policy choice. When are you three months,

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: two months, you choose. I just say in stock because there's no way to predict whether it's six how how are you gonna know it's six months? Okay. I've got six minutes. Yeah. Okay. I can make that change. That would be how nervous about the sworn. I'm not. I'm not.

[Sen. John Morley III (Member)]: Is this a favorable amendment?

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It it sounds like you might not be voting right now.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I think you're right. I think I'd like to see the language before we vote on this. Okay. Yeah. And we'll then we can vote on it. We can do that tomorrow. And can we do I mean, our baby formula is not going in for you here, our baby food. Can we do not enact it, but goes into effect or formula? Because California might say, and it's gonna go into effect in two years, and then we've got Vermont hanging out there. It's not just the legislature votes, but there has to be and it goes into effect. Absolutely. Leaving that in Katie's hands. Quick question. I'll set

[Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Vice Chair)]: the policy brief. Is this yeah. Is this testimony that we just got? Has it been presented to us before? Because it's frustrating getting this at the eleventh hour.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Well, they no. Bill Trisco was in last week. You're saying he's exact same face? Very similar. Yeah. No. It's not last minute. The last minute was the person we invited in from the manufacturer. It's okay. And I think we did hear this. But I'm not convinced that we shouldn't do something. So the policy question you're asking is? Do you want the infant formula piece to take effect on enactment in another state or on

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: effect in another state? I think on effect. On effect. On effect.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: I think senator Cummings was a a comment. Okay.

[Katie McDonough, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I will make that change.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: And can you get me that? Yes. When we did seeds, we did six months. No, we're at we're we're being called to the floor. So, Bill, I know you wanna say, I hear you. Just

[Brendan Allen, Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Human Services]: the FDA approval's gonna have to be a problem with this.

[Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chair)]: Yeah. There's all of that. And that all has to happen. That's a legal So regardless of what it says in the bill, But legal requirement that has to go be gone through. Right. You don't wanna be avoid a doctor. No. Yeah. If they violate it, you you can sue them. You know?

[Brendan Allen, Policy Director, Vermont Agency of Human Services]: Well, I see.